In late April, the Justice Department (DOJ) initiated an investigation into claims of discrimination against white men at the student-run law journal, the Harvard Law Review, with a hearing now set for July 21. 

The investigation epitomizes President Donald Trump’s yearslong attack on the press for alleged corruption and bias and the administration’s more recent crackdown on higher education. As a top research university, Tech has already felt the effects of federal and state legislation shaping what projects receive funding and how our resource centers are structured. However, Tech is not alone in seeing how systemic change in higher education bleeds into the lives of all Americans.

The Harvard Law Review operates independently of Harvard University and is widely considered the one of the most prestigious law journals in the United States, with high-level courts using articles from the Law Review to support rulings and develop arguments. It is undoubtedly important to investigate and condemn instances of racism and bias when they occur, particularly in fields as impactful as the legal one. 

More broadly speaking, independent student publications, including the Technique, have a responsibility to take claims of discrimination seriously which may lead to biased hiring or reporting. Dually, publication’s independence from university and government oversight without fear of retribution allows them to cover difficult issues honestly and impartially. A publication is only as comprehensive as the voices and subject matters it chooses to present. This issue extends beyond student background; for example, college campus publications must consider club participation, field of study and personal interests when researching for news that impacts their readers.

The federal investigation into The Law Review calls into question the point at which biases are severe enough to require intervention from a higher body, whether it be a university or government. 

The case, as far as the government has disclosed, is predicated on the testimony of one cooperating witness, Harvard Law graduate Daniel Wasserman. In documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, editors at the Law Review make note of the racial and educational background of various authors and where their perspective may be limiting or may provide a new angle on a topic.

Interpreting the law is inherently biased, therefore it is necessary to include as many perspectives on a given subject as possible. Choosing to uplift a variety of expert voices, not just one, accounts for more biases and therefore tends to represent more of the people that the law presides over. 

The Law Review boasts an impressive roster of influential alumni including former President Barack Obama and late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom shaped laws and articulated important decisions in the government to Americans. Obama’s election was not a diversity hire by the American public; he is a gifted speaker and politician that struck home for a majority of voters — twice. It is impossible to know if working on the Law Review specifically propels alumni’s careers, but it is impossible to deny that the Law Review generates highly regarded information and interpretations. 

All publications should have the shared goal of generating the highest quality of content to inform their audience. Publications have an obligation to find the reporters and investigators that understand and can talk about issues clearly. They also have a duty to be thorough and cover a variety of topics within their scope, not just the headlines or titles that are interesting to one type of person. Finding the right writer or speaker to cover a topic is not dependent on if they align with the issue or affected group — it is dependent on their ability to holistically capture a subject matter. 

However, the looming threat of litigation or financial abandonment directed at student publications from the source that funds them tends to silent student voices even further if applied wantonly. The accusations levied against the Law Review and the ensuing investigation hurt the freedom of the press on college campuses and also stifles a voice that supports the system of checks and balances that maintain our democracy. If bias is the root cause of the concern, limiting research and threatening student publications is not the solution.

The post Consensus: Federal Probe in Student Publications appeared first on Technique.

In late April, the Justice Department (DOJ) initiated an investigation into claims of discrimination against white men at the student-run law journal, the Harvard Law Review, with a hearing now set for July 21. 

The investigation epitomizes President Donald Trump’s yearslong attack on the press for alleged corruption and bias and the administration’s more recent crackdown on higher education. As a top research university, Tech has already felt the effects of federal and state legislation shaping what projects receive funding and how our resource centers are structured. However, Tech is not alone in seeing how systemic change in higher education bleeds into the lives of all Americans.

The Harvard Law Review operates independently of Harvard University and is widely considered the one of the most prestigious law journals in the United States, with high-level courts using articles from the Law Review to support rulings and develop arguments. It is undoubtedly important to investigate and condemn instances of racism and bias when they occur, particularly in fields as impactful as the legal one. 

More broadly speaking, independent student publications, including the Technique, have a responsibility to take claims of discrimination seriously which may lead to biased hiring or reporting. Dually, publication’s independence from university and government oversight without fear of retribution allows them to cover difficult issues honestly and impartially. A publication is only as comprehensive as the voices and subject matters it chooses to present. This issue extends beyond student background; for example, college campus publications must consider club participation, field of study and personal interests when researching for news that impacts their readers.

The federal investigation into The Law Review calls into question the point at which biases are severe enough to require intervention from a higher body, whether it be a university or government. 

The case, as far as the government has disclosed, is predicated on the testimony of one cooperating witness, Harvard Law graduate Daniel Wasserman. In documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, editors at the Law Review make note of the racial and educational background of various authors and where their perspective may be limiting or may provide a new angle on a topic.

Interpreting the law is inherently biased, therefore it is necessary to include as many perspectives on a given subject as possible. Choosing to uplift a variety of expert voices, not just one, accounts for more biases and therefore tends to represent more of the people that the law presides over. 

The Law Review boasts an impressive roster of influential alumni including former President Barack Obama and late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom shaped laws and articulated important decisions in the government to Americans. Obama’s election was not a diversity hire by the American public; he is a gifted speaker and politician that struck home for a majority of voters — twice. It is impossible to know if working on the Law Review specifically propels alumni’s careers, but it is impossible to deny that the Law Review generates highly regarded information and interpretations. 

All publications should have the shared goal of generating the highest quality of content to inform their audience. Publications have an obligation to find the reporters and investigators that understand and can talk about issues clearly. They also have a duty to be thorough and cover a variety of topics within their scope, not just the headlines or titles that are interesting to one type of person. Finding the right writer or speaker to cover a topic is not dependent on if they align with the issue or affected group — it is dependent on their ability to holistically capture a subject matter. 

However, the looming threat of litigation or financial abandonment directed at student publications from the source that funds them tends to silent student voices even further if applied wantonly. The accusations levied against the Law Review and the ensuing investigation hurt the freedom of the press on college campuses and also stifles a voice that supports the system of checks and balances that maintain our democracy. If bias is the root cause of the concern, limiting research and threatening student publications is not the solution.

The post Consensus: Federal Probe in Student Publications appeared first on Technique.

In late April, the Justice Department (DOJ) initiated an investigation into claims of discrimination against white men at the student-run law journal, the Harvard Law Review, with a hearing now set for July 21. 

The investigation epitomizes President Donald Trump’s yearslong attack on the press for alleged corruption and bias and the administration’s more recent crackdown on higher education. As a top research university, Tech has already felt the effects of federal and state legislation shaping what projects receive funding and how our resource centers are structured. However, Tech is not alone in seeing how systemic change in higher education bleeds into the lives of all Americans.

The Harvard Law Review operates independently of Harvard University and is widely considered the one of the most prestigious law journals in the United States, with high-level courts using articles from the Law Review to support rulings and develop arguments. It is undoubtedly important to investigate and condemn instances of racism and bias when they occur, particularly in fields as impactful as the legal one. 

More broadly speaking, independent student publications, including the Technique, have a responsibility to take claims of discrimination seriously which may lead to biased hiring or reporting. Dually, publication’s independence from university and government oversight without fear of retribution allows them to cover difficult issues honestly and impartially. A publication is only as comprehensive as the voices and subject matters it chooses to present. This issue extends beyond student background; for example, college campus publications must consider club participation, field of study and personal interests when researching for news that impacts their readers.

The federal investigation into The Law Review calls into question the point at which biases are severe enough to require intervention from a higher body, whether it be a university or government. 

The case, as far as the government has disclosed, is predicated on the testimony of one cooperating witness, Harvard Law graduate Daniel Wasserman. In documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, editors at the Law Review make note of the racial and educational background of various authors and where their perspective may be limiting or may provide a new angle on a topic.

Interpreting the law is inherently biased, therefore it is necessary to include as many perspectives on a given subject as possible. Choosing to uplift a variety of expert voices, not just one, accounts for more biases and therefore tends to represent more of the people that the law presides over. 

The Law Review boasts an impressive roster of influential alumni including former President Barack Obama and late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom shaped laws and articulated important decisions in the government to Americans. Obama’s election was not a diversity hire by the American public; he is a gifted speaker and politician that struck home for a majority of voters — twice. It is impossible to know if working on the Law Review specifically propels alumni’s careers, but it is impossible to deny that the Law Review generates highly regarded information and interpretations. 

All publications should have the shared goal of generating the highest quality of content to inform their audience. Publications have an obligation to find the reporters and investigators that understand and can talk about issues clearly. They also have a duty to be thorough and cover a variety of topics within their scope, not just the headlines or titles that are interesting to one type of person. Finding the right writer or speaker to cover a topic is not dependent on if they align with the issue or affected group — it is dependent on their ability to holistically capture a subject matter. 

However, the looming threat of litigation or financial abandonment directed at student publications from the source that funds them tends to silent student voices even further if applied wantonly. The accusations levied against the Law Review and the ensuing investigation hurt the freedom of the press on college campuses and also stifles a voice that supports the system of checks and balances that maintain our democracy. If bias is the root cause of the concern, limiting research and threatening student publications is not the solution.

The post Consensus: Federal Probe in Student Publications appeared first on Technique.

In late April, the Justice Department (DOJ) initiated an investigation into claims of discrimination against white men at the student-run law journal, the Harvard Law Review, with a hearing now set for July 21. 

The investigation epitomizes President Donald Trump’s yearslong attack on the press for alleged corruption and bias and the administration’s more recent crackdown on higher education. As a top research university, Tech has already felt the effects of federal and state legislation shaping what projects receive funding and how our resource centers are structured. However, Tech is not alone in seeing how systemic change in higher education bleeds into the lives of all Americans.

The Harvard Law Review operates independently of Harvard University and is widely considered the one of the most prestigious law journals in the United States, with high-level courts using articles from the Law Review to support rulings and develop arguments. It is undoubtedly important to investigate and condemn instances of racism and bias when they occur, particularly in fields as impactful as the legal one. 

More broadly speaking, independent student publications, including the Technique, have a responsibility to take claims of discrimination seriously which may lead to biased hiring or reporting. Dually, publication’s independence from university and government oversight without fear of retribution allows them to cover difficult issues honestly and impartially. A publication is only as comprehensive as the voices and subject matters it chooses to present. This issue extends beyond student background; for example, college campus publications must consider club participation, field of study and personal interests when researching for news that impacts their readers.

The federal investigation into The Law Review calls into question the point at which biases are severe enough to require intervention from a higher body, whether it be a university or government. 

The case, as far as the government has disclosed, is predicated on the testimony of one cooperating witness, Harvard Law graduate Daniel Wasserman. In documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, editors at the Law Review make note of the racial and educational background of various authors and where their perspective may be limiting or may provide a new angle on a topic.

Interpreting the law is inherently biased, therefore it is necessary to include as many perspectives on a given subject as possible. Choosing to uplift a variety of expert voices, not just one, accounts for more biases and therefore tends to represent more of the people that the law presides over. 

The Law Review boasts an impressive roster of influential alumni including former President Barack Obama and late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom shaped laws and articulated important decisions in the government to Americans. Obama’s election was not a diversity hire by the American public; he is a gifted speaker and politician that struck home for a majority of voters — twice. It is impossible to know if working on the Law Review specifically propels alumni’s careers, but it is impossible to deny that the Law Review generates highly regarded information and interpretations. 

All publications should have the shared goal of generating the highest quality of content to inform their audience. Publications have an obligation to find the reporters and investigators that understand and can talk about issues clearly. They also have a duty to be thorough and cover a variety of topics within their scope, not just the headlines or titles that are interesting to one type of person. Finding the right writer or speaker to cover a topic is not dependent on if they align with the issue or affected group — it is dependent on their ability to holistically capture a subject matter. 

However, the looming threat of litigation or financial abandonment directed at student publications from the source that funds them tends to silent student voices even further if applied wantonly. The accusations levied against the Law Review and the ensuing investigation hurt the freedom of the press on college campuses and also stifles a voice that supports the system of checks and balances that maintain our democracy. If bias is the root cause of the concern, limiting research and threatening student publications is not the solution.

The post Consensus: Federal Probe in Student Publications appeared first on Technique.

In late April, the Justice Department (DOJ) initiated an investigation into claims of discrimination against white men at the student-run law journal, the Harvard Law Review, with a hearing now set for July 21. 

The investigation epitomizes President Donald Trump’s yearslong attack on the press for alleged corruption and bias and the administration’s more recent crackdown on higher education. As a top research university, Tech has already felt the effects of federal and state legislation shaping what projects receive funding and how our resource centers are structured. However, Tech is not alone in seeing how systemic change in higher education bleeds into the lives of all Americans.

The Harvard Law Review operates independently of Harvard University and is widely considered the one of the most prestigious law journals in the United States, with high-level courts using articles from the Law Review to support rulings and develop arguments. It is undoubtedly important to investigate and condemn instances of racism and bias when they occur, particularly in fields as impactful as the legal one. 

More broadly speaking, independent student publications, including the Technique, have a responsibility to take claims of discrimination seriously which may lead to biased hiring or reporting. Dually, publication’s independence from university and government oversight without fear of retribution allows them to cover difficult issues honestly and impartially. A publication is only as comprehensive as the voices and subject matters it chooses to present. This issue extends beyond student background; for example, college campus publications must consider club participation, field of study and personal interests when researching for news that impacts their readers.

The federal investigation into The Law Review calls into question the point at which biases are severe enough to require intervention from a higher body, whether it be a university or government. 

The case, as far as the government has disclosed, is predicated on the testimony of one cooperating witness, Harvard Law graduate Daniel Wasserman. In documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, editors at the Law Review make note of the racial and educational background of various authors and where their perspective may be limiting or may provide a new angle on a topic.

Interpreting the law is inherently biased, therefore it is necessary to include as many perspectives on a given subject as possible. Choosing to uplift a variety of expert voices, not just one, accounts for more biases and therefore tends to represent more of the people that the law presides over. 

The Law Review boasts an impressive roster of influential alumni including former President Barack Obama and late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom shaped laws and articulated important decisions in the government to Americans. Obama’s election was not a diversity hire by the American public; he is a gifted speaker and politician that struck home for a majority of voters — twice. It is impossible to know if working on the Law Review specifically propels alumni’s careers, but it is impossible to deny that the Law Review generates highly regarded information and interpretations. 

All publications should have the shared goal of generating the highest quality of content to inform their audience. Publications have an obligation to find the reporters and investigators that understand and can talk about issues clearly. They also have a duty to be thorough and cover a variety of topics within their scope, not just the headlines or titles that are interesting to one type of person. Finding the right writer or speaker to cover a topic is not dependent on if they align with the issue or affected group — it is dependent on their ability to holistically capture a subject matter. 

However, the looming threat of litigation or financial abandonment directed at student publications from the source that funds them tends to silent student voices even further if applied wantonly. The accusations levied against the Law Review and the ensuing investigation hurt the freedom of the press on college campuses and also stifles a voice that supports the system of checks and balances that maintain our democracy. If bias is the root cause of the concern, limiting research and threatening student publications is not the solution.

The post Consensus: Federal Probe in Student Publications appeared first on Technique.

In late April, the Justice Department (DOJ) initiated an investigation into claims of discrimination against white men at the student-run law journal, the Harvard Law Review, with a hearing now set for July 21. 

The investigation epitomizes President Donald Trump’s yearslong attack on the press for alleged corruption and bias and the administration’s more recent crackdown on higher education. As a top research university, Tech has already felt the effects of federal and state legislation shaping what projects receive funding and how our resource centers are structured. However, Tech is not alone in seeing how systemic change in higher education bleeds into the lives of all Americans.

The Harvard Law Review operates independently of Harvard University and is widely considered the one of the most prestigious law journals in the United States, with high-level courts using articles from the Law Review to support rulings and develop arguments. It is undoubtedly important to investigate and condemn instances of racism and bias when they occur, particularly in fields as impactful as the legal one. 

More broadly speaking, independent student publications, including the Technique, have a responsibility to take claims of discrimination seriously which may lead to biased hiring or reporting. Dually, publication’s independence from university and government oversight without fear of retribution allows them to cover difficult issues honestly and impartially. A publication is only as comprehensive as the voices and subject matters it chooses to present. This issue extends beyond student background; for example, college campus publications must consider club participation, field of study and personal interests when researching for news that impacts their readers.

The federal investigation into The Law Review calls into question the point at which biases are severe enough to require intervention from a higher body, whether it be a university or government. 

The case, as far as the government has disclosed, is predicated on the testimony of one cooperating witness, Harvard Law graduate Daniel Wasserman. In documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, editors at the Law Review make note of the racial and educational background of various authors and where their perspective may be limiting or may provide a new angle on a topic.

Interpreting the law is inherently biased, therefore it is necessary to include as many perspectives on a given subject as possible. Choosing to uplift a variety of expert voices, not just one, accounts for more biases and therefore tends to represent more of the people that the law presides over. 

The Law Review boasts an impressive roster of influential alumni including former President Barack Obama and late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom shaped laws and articulated important decisions in the government to Americans. Obama’s election was not a diversity hire by the American public; he is a gifted speaker and politician that struck home for a majority of voters — twice. It is impossible to know if working on the Law Review specifically propels alumni’s careers, but it is impossible to deny that the Law Review generates highly regarded information and interpretations. 

All publications should have the shared goal of generating the highest quality of content to inform their audience. Publications have an obligation to find the reporters and investigators that understand and can talk about issues clearly. They also have a duty to be thorough and cover a variety of topics within their scope, not just the headlines or titles that are interesting to one type of person. Finding the right writer or speaker to cover a topic is not dependent on if they align with the issue or affected group — it is dependent on their ability to holistically capture a subject matter. 

However, the looming threat of litigation or financial abandonment directed at student publications from the source that funds them tends to silent student voices even further if applied wantonly. The accusations levied against the Law Review and the ensuing investigation hurt the freedom of the press on college campuses and also stifles a voice that supports the system of checks and balances that maintain our democracy. If bias is the root cause of the concern, limiting research and threatening student publications is not the solution.

The post Consensus: Federal Probe in Student Publications appeared first on Technique.

In late April, the Justice Department (DOJ) initiated an investigation into claims of discrimination against white men at the student-run law journal, the Harvard Law Review, with a hearing now set for July 21. 

The investigation epitomizes President Donald Trump’s yearslong attack on the press for alleged corruption and bias and the administration’s more recent crackdown on higher education. As a top research university, Tech has already felt the effects of federal and state legislation shaping what projects receive funding and how our resource centers are structured. However, Tech is not alone in seeing how systemic change in higher education bleeds into the lives of all Americans.

The Harvard Law Review operates independently of Harvard University and is widely considered the one of the most prestigious law journals in the United States, with high-level courts using articles from the Law Review to support rulings and develop arguments. It is undoubtedly important to investigate and condemn instances of racism and bias when they occur, particularly in fields as impactful as the legal one. 

More broadly speaking, independent student publications, including the Technique, have a responsibility to take claims of discrimination seriously which may lead to biased hiring or reporting. Dually, publication’s independence from university and government oversight without fear of retribution allows them to cover difficult issues honestly and impartially. A publication is only as comprehensive as the voices and subject matters it chooses to present. This issue extends beyond student background; for example, college campus publications must consider club participation, field of study and personal interests when researching for news that impacts their readers.

The federal investigation into The Law Review calls into question the point at which biases are severe enough to require intervention from a higher body, whether it be a university or government. 

The case, as far as the government has disclosed, is predicated on the testimony of one cooperating witness, Harvard Law graduate Daniel Wasserman. In documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, editors at the Law Review make note of the racial and educational background of various authors and where their perspective may be limiting or may provide a new angle on a topic.

Interpreting the law is inherently biased, therefore it is necessary to include as many perspectives on a given subject as possible. Choosing to uplift a variety of expert voices, not just one, accounts for more biases and therefore tends to represent more of the people that the law presides over. 

The Law Review boasts an impressive roster of influential alumni including former President Barack Obama and late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom shaped laws and articulated important decisions in the government to Americans. Obama’s election was not a diversity hire by the American public; he is a gifted speaker and politician that struck home for a majority of voters — twice. It is impossible to know if working on the Law Review specifically propels alumni’s careers, but it is impossible to deny that the Law Review generates highly regarded information and interpretations. 

All publications should have the shared goal of generating the highest quality of content to inform their audience. Publications have an obligation to find the reporters and investigators that understand and can talk about issues clearly. They also have a duty to be thorough and cover a variety of topics within their scope, not just the headlines or titles that are interesting to one type of person. Finding the right writer or speaker to cover a topic is not dependent on if they align with the issue or affected group — it is dependent on their ability to holistically capture a subject matter. 

However, the looming threat of litigation or financial abandonment directed at student publications from the source that funds them tends to silent student voices even further if applied wantonly. The accusations levied against the Law Review and the ensuing investigation hurt the freedom of the press on college campuses and also stifles a voice that supports the system of checks and balances that maintain our democracy. If bias is the root cause of the concern, limiting research and threatening student publications is not the solution.

The post Consensus: Federal Probe in Student Publications appeared first on Technique.

In late April, the Justice Department (DOJ) initiated an investigation into claims of discrimination against white men at the student-run law journal, the Harvard Law Review, with a hearing now set for July 21. 

The investigation epitomizes President Donald Trump’s yearslong attack on the press for alleged corruption and bias and the administration’s more recent crackdown on higher education. As a top research university, Tech has already felt the effects of federal and state legislation shaping what projects receive funding and how our resource centers are structured. However, Tech is not alone in seeing how systemic change in higher education bleeds into the lives of all Americans.

The Harvard Law Review operates independently of Harvard University and is widely considered the one of the most prestigious law journals in the United States, with high-level courts using articles from the Law Review to support rulings and develop arguments. It is undoubtedly important to investigate and condemn instances of racism and bias when they occur, particularly in fields as impactful as the legal one. 

More broadly speaking, independent student publications, including the Technique, have a responsibility to take claims of discrimination seriously which may lead to biased hiring or reporting. Dually, publication’s independence from university and government oversight without fear of retribution allows them to cover difficult issues honestly and impartially. A publication is only as comprehensive as the voices and subject matters it chooses to present. This issue extends beyond student background; for example, college campus publications must consider club participation, field of study and personal interests when researching for news that impacts their readers.

The federal investigation into The Law Review calls into question the point at which biases are severe enough to require intervention from a higher body, whether it be a university or government. 

The case, as far as the government has disclosed, is predicated on the testimony of one cooperating witness, Harvard Law graduate Daniel Wasserman. In documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, editors at the Law Review make note of the racial and educational background of various authors and where their perspective may be limiting or may provide a new angle on a topic.

Interpreting the law is inherently biased, therefore it is necessary to include as many perspectives on a given subject as possible. Choosing to uplift a variety of expert voices, not just one, accounts for more biases and therefore tends to represent more of the people that the law presides over. 

The Law Review boasts an impressive roster of influential alumni including former President Barack Obama and late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom shaped laws and articulated important decisions in the government to Americans. Obama’s election was not a diversity hire by the American public; he is a gifted speaker and politician that struck home for a majority of voters — twice. It is impossible to know if working on the Law Review specifically propels alumni’s careers, but it is impossible to deny that the Law Review generates highly regarded information and interpretations. 

All publications should have the shared goal of generating the highest quality of content to inform their audience. Publications have an obligation to find the reporters and investigators that understand and can talk about issues clearly. They also have a duty to be thorough and cover a variety of topics within their scope, not just the headlines or titles that are interesting to one type of person. Finding the right writer or speaker to cover a topic is not dependent on if they align with the issue or affected group — it is dependent on their ability to holistically capture a subject matter. 

However, the looming threat of litigation or financial abandonment directed at student publications from the source that funds them tends to silent student voices even further if applied wantonly. The accusations levied against the Law Review and the ensuing investigation hurt the freedom of the press on college campuses and also stifles a voice that supports the system of checks and balances that maintain our democracy. If bias is the root cause of the concern, limiting research and threatening student publications is not the solution.

The post Consensus: Federal Probe in Student Publications appeared first on Technique.

Each year, the Technique editorial board identifies a ticket in Tech’s Undergraduate Student Government Association (SGA) race that we feel is best suited to represent the student body in the next academic year. We carefully considered each one of the three  — Hunter Richardson and Noah Pastula, Dhruv Kulkarni and Kyra Stillwagon, and Sultan Ziyad and Xiomara Salinas — based on the debate and their platforms to make our endorsement.  

For the first ticket, the feature that underlies much of Richardson and Pastula’s campaign is their collective experience in SGA leadership. Richardson currently serves as the Vice President of Academic Affairs for the Undergraduate SGA, a position he has held for the past three years, and Pastula is currently serving as Speaker of the Undergraduate House of Representatives. They assert that their experience best prepares them to achieve the goals outlined in their 47-page platform. Richardson and Pastula’s platform is comprehensive, yet tempered with the knowledge that comes from years of service in SGA. In the debate, Richardson highlighted the candidates’ connections to administration as a powerful tool that they will leverage to fix many issues facing the student body. In particular, we commend the platform for recognizing issues important to the student body, including class registration issues and campus housing access. 

However, Richardson and Pastula’s greatest strength may hinder them. With a combined 7 years of experience in SGA, students are concerned the candidates will uphold the status quo instead of bringing about real change. Richardson and Pastula’s “TL;DR” of 100 different goals for the administration is an excellent example of our greatest concern with their candidacy. While there are no doubt good ideas within their campaign, Richardson and Pastula needed to find a way to connect with voters, cut unnecessary jargon and refine their platform by narrowing their focus to the most impactful and achievable goals.

If experience was the greatest strength of the Richardson Pastula campaign, lack of experience is the unique centerpiece of Kulkarni and Stillwagon’s candidacies. The pair is not shy about admitting they are SGA outsiders, but they proudly tout their experience within Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) at Tech. Kulkarni and Stillwagon provide a fresh perspective with valuable commentary on the struggles student organizations face in communicating with SGA. The pair’s focus on RSOs is the strongest point of their campaign. They recognize the important work of clubs and organizations on Tech’s campus and argue that SGA should be primarily supportive.

While we applaud Kulkarni and Stillwagon for highlighting often-overlooked issues, simply noting challenges affecting the student body is not enough. The ticket does not present solutions and actionable goals to address the concerns that they raise. Unfortunately, their crunch for time given the ticket’s late entry into the race is evident in their platform. Despite this, Kulkarni and Stillwagon’s passion speaks volumes, and they will no doubt continue to do good for our campus.

One thing is certain about the Ziyad and Salinas campaign — it has drive. Change is at the heart of their platform. They highlighted issues like campus sustainability and accessibility while ensuring they engaged all students. Beyond their plans, Ziyad and Salinas connect with the issues personally. A perfect example was during the SGA debate when asked about the changing policy toward DEI programs; instead of giving a perfunctory reply supporting DEI, Ziyad connected with the audience. He shared his experience within those programs, acknowledged he did not have all the answers and assured us he would fight for the programs because he was genuinely passionate about supporting inclusive initiatives on campus. 

The biggest criticism of the Ziyad and Salinas platform is the unattainability of some of their platform goals. Neither are strangers to SGA. Ziyad co-led the 2024 Wreck the Vote initiative, and Salinas is currently serving as infrastructure chair. However, their lack of executive experience leaves some questions about their knowledge of the limitations of SGA. An example of this is their plan “to create an SGA fund to assist international students with semesterly healthcare insurance costs through a need-based application system.” While a laudable goal, regulations surrounding the SGA endowment and Institute policy may block actions like these. Though part of their strength is their creativity and fresh perspectives, experience would afford them the knowledge of what is within their influence. 

At the Technique, we recognize the host of challenges students face, from dining and housing struggles to the frustrations of class registration and construction. Addressing these Institute-wide issues will require strong, decisive leadership — leaders who not only advocate for students but also adapt to the evolving landscape of higher education. As policies shift and new challenges emerge, it is essential that the new SGA leaders not only acknowledge student voices but actively incorporate them into decision-making. While the decision is close, we feel that Ziyad and Salinas’s platform is best suited to lead the student body through these uncertainties. Now is the time for new voices to usher in creative solutions to issues facing Tech. 

Ziyad and Salinas stand firm in their beliefs and offer a platform that feels relatable and genuine. Despite their imperfections, we are confident that they will be strong advocates for the student body moving forward.

The post 2025-2026 SGA executive endorsement appeared first on Technique.

Last month Australia’s “right to disconnect” law went into full effect, codifying the right of workers to ignore unreasonable contact from their employers after hours. Australia’s Minister for Employment and Workplace relations says the law is attempting to “bring back some work life balance.” Australia joins the ranks of nations such as France and Argentina which have already had these “right to disconnect” laws on the books for some time. The discussion is not limited to overseas however, as California may become the first state to pass a similar after-hour communication ban with the introduction of Assembly Bill 2751. The bill requires employers and employees to set a clear contract on appropriate communication times potentially imposing fines if employers do not  hold their side of the bargain. While these laws are good in spirit, attempting to protect workers from unfair practices, they merely address a symptom rather than the underlying cultural problem of work-life balance.

While there are many obvious luxuries of living in the digital age, this era presents us with unique challenges. Constant and widespread access to technology has made us more reachable than ever before and while this can be a good thing, like when you need AAA after you get a flat tire on the side of the road, it also presents a host of problems. One of which is your employer having unprecedented access to you. Never before has it been so easy for your boss to contact you. Suddenly your 9 to 5 turns into a 9 to 12 because your employer constantly bombards you with after-hour emails and texts. The erosion of free time in favor of increased work has tilted the scales of the work-life balance and not in the right direction.

America has always seemed to value hard work.  Investment bankers boast 80-hour work weeks on Wall Street and doctors-in-training are known to work 24 hour shifts. Many view the Hard-working blue-collar Americans as the backbone of the nation. The ceaseless grind in American culture is seen as a good thing. Stemming from the notion that those who work hard enough, who stay late enough, who really put in their best effort will achieve success and social advancement. This American idolization of hard work isn’t necessarily bad— through Americans’ hard work have come some of the greatest technologies, products, and innovations of our time. The problem occurs when we begin to allow work to become all-consuming and erode all free time.

This is where “right to disconnect” laws step in and set boundaries, attempting to restore balance between work and life. While these laws are virtuous, they are synonymous with scooping water out of a sinking ship without patching the actual holes. The problem is cultural. Our society values “the grind,” therefore the only way to actually effect change will be to change our society. This begins by setting clear expectations between an employee and company. An employee should know exactly what commitment they are making to a company. Companies must create a work culture where healthy home lives are valued as much as gross productivity.

In order to create meaningful change, it is crucial that employees, employers, and policymakers alike engage in an open dialogue about the expectations and realities of modern work culture. Companies should actively promote a culture where taking time off and disconnecting are not only acceptable but encouraged. Policies discouraging after-hours communication should be standard practice, not exceptional. Employees must advocate for themselves, asserting their right to a life outside of work without fear of repercussions and  employers must foster an environment where employees can advocate for themselves without fear of retribution. As the conversation continues to evolve, it is up to everyone to challenge the status quo and contribute to a future where success is measured not just by the hours worked, but by the quality of life experienced. 

While “right to disconnect” laws offer a step toward protecting workers from the encroachment of work into their personal lives, they are not a comprehensive solution to the deeper issue of an overworked culture. True progress will only come when there is a fundamental shift in how we perceive productivity and success. This involves redefining what it means to work hard and recognizing the importance of boundaries and personal time. Companies must take responsibility by cultivating environments where work-life balance is genuinely respected, and employees feel empowered to set healthy limits. Only then can we move beyond legislation and foster a culture that truly values both professional dedication and personal well-being.

The post Balancing work and life appeared first on Technique.