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.

At every turn on campus, you can hear the clatter of construction. Blocked sidewalks, traffic cones and the noxious smell of asphalt assail your daily commute to class. While some projects are preparing to wrap up, including the Women’s Tribute, others have yet to break ground, like the new 860-bed residence hall expected in 2026. While it is undoubtedly important to improve our school, this should not come at the expense of a campus utility to the current student body. 

Campus construction is undoubtedly a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is difficult to argue against improving Tech’s campus. Investments such as Science Square will promote new research opportunities for students while furthering scientific innovation, and the 2026 resident hall project will finally begin to address the desperate need for additional campus housing. On the other hand, construction presents a nuisance and diminishes students’ ability to enjoy the campus they pay for. The problem is not construction itself, per se, but rather the copious amounts of simultaneous construction that interfere with our ability as students to navigate and use campus. 

The question is, how do we effectively balance improving our campus while maximizing students’ utility? One thing is obvious: the current model, which has seen campuses marred by scaffolding and fences, is tipping the scales in the wrong direction.  

From an outside perspective, the choice of projects seems to have no particular rationale. Construction patches are blotted all over campus like a Jackson Pollock painting. The construction on the Woman’s Tribute near the Student Center and Ferst Theatre that began last year is still underway and blocks a major thoroughfare connecting East and West Campus. If Tech could prioritize one project rather than divide its efforts among others, could the work not be completed faster? It certainly would create a better environment for current students.

Many of the projects lack efficiency, with construction progressing at a gruelingly slow pace. Consider the bike lanes on Ferst Drive. The construction is in its seventh month, and while the lanes are necessary, they create horrible traffic, with no obvious attempts to divert congestion.

Tech administration needs to develop a new strategy that considers time, efficient use of the campus, pedestrian traffic, commuter needs and campus experience. The everything-everywhere-all-at-once approach is simply not working. We call on the administration to increase the transparency of construction decisions. We must strike a balance that recognizes current students’ use of the campus while keeping one eye on the future. To ensure the best campus experience for students, administration should shift construction towards the summer while minimizing work during the main academic year, ensure projects are completed on time, not inundate one part of campus with many construction projects and avoid significant disruptions.  

While construction on campus is a sign of progress and growth, it also presents significant challenges for the current student body. It is essential to strike a balance between building for the future and maintaining the quality of life for those who are here now. After all, a campus is more than just buildings — it is a place where students live, learn, and create memories. The heightened construction on campus creates a baseline sense of student frustration, which is exacerbated by the administration’s lack of communication and transparency. The administration must consider the immediate needs of the current student body and implement strategies that minimize disruption while pursuing necessary campus improvements. We must hope that once the dust settles, the improvements will outweigh the inconveniences, and Tech will emerge as an even more vibrant and dynamic place to learn. 

The Consensus Opinion reflects the majority opinion of the Editorial Board of the Technique, but not necessarily the opinions of individual editors.

The post Campus Construction appeared first on Technique.

The political maelstrom has come to Georgia as the state hosts the first 2024 presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Since the 2020 presidential election, Georgia has become a key political battleground. From senatorial and gubernatorial races to Fulton County indictments, both sides of the political spectrum are calling on Georgia voters to pick a side. 

With the Peach State’s increasing political pull, the question remains: Do the candidates really value Georgia voters?  

The best way to gauge a candidate’s fidelity to a state is by the policies they support, their devotion to those principles and how they engage with the state. Neither Trump nor Biden have passed this test with flying colors.

When Biden and Trump take the stage at CNN studios on Thursday, they will undoubtedly call upon viewers to support them in their bids for the White House. Hopefully, a discussion of policy will be nestled among the political stumping and vitriolic opponent-bashing that has undermined past debates.

For Georgia voters, it’s clear — the economy is the top ticket item in November, according to a poll by Quinnipiac University, with 29% of Georgians listing it as their most important issue in the election. 

The Biden administration touts record wages and low unemployment as evidence of a healthy economy. Inflation peaked in 2022 at 9.06 percent and steadily declined to 3.27 percent as of May. By all technical standards, the Georgia economy has performed well during Biden’s tenure, but voters are still dissatisfied. 

When Georgians go to pump gas or check out at the grocery store, the price is too high. The increased cost of living is crushing everyday people — their dollar simply doesn’t go as far as it used to. 

When asked who is to blame, RNC spokesperson Henry Scavone says, “Joe Biden’s policies have led to higher prices, lower wages and a struggling agriculture industry for families in Georgia.”

As students, we feel the squeeze of inflation. Biden’s assertion that the economy is improving isn’t enough to assuage our concerns — neither candidate has shown a clear plan to reduce costs or adequately defended their economic record. 

While Republicans fault Biden for inflation, Moody Analytics reports that Biden’s policies are better overall for the economy. Since taking office, Biden has created 450,000 jobs in Georgia and invested billions in Georgia infrastructure projects and small businesses, propelling record numbers of new Black and Latino-owned startups.

Biden suffers from a perception problem.

For Biden to move the dial on Georgians’ opinion of his economic record, he must acknowledge the reality of increased costs while confidently asserting his administration’s progress. The numbers don’t speak for themselves; more analysis is necessary than simply stating that Biden is good for the economy. While he has the evidence to back it up, Biden must tout his economic record and plans for the next four years to sway skeptics.

Perception is critical for both campaigns as they vie for poll superiority. As it stands, Trump is on top with a five percent lead over Biden. Both campaigns have begun to mobilize across the state to garner support. 

The Republicans have opened more than a dozen Trump Force 47 campaign offices throughout the state and plan to establish more. However, on their ground game, the Trump campaign is playing catch-up in Georgia. Biden has more offices, more staff and a more established network to spread his message.

Biden and his allies have been in the state more. Trump has visited Georgia on only a handful of occasions, while the president, vice president, first lady and second gentlemen have visited the state frequently. The Biden campaign has held over two hundred events in the state this week, drumming up anticipation for the debates. It would be remiss if we didn’t mention Trump has been on trial for multiple felonies in New York, which may explain his decreased presence in Georgia.

In May, Biden gave the commencement address at Morehouse College, where he touted his administration’s accomplishments for Black Americans. Biden’s presence was controversial, with alumni and students demanding that the offer for Biden to speak be revoked in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Biden must avoid the perception that he is simply window-dressing his support of Black America. The tension highlights how Biden’s support from Black Americans has dwindled, and according to the Washington Post, their turnout in 2024 will be critical to his victory in Georgia. 

The Trump campaign is quick to point out the dwindling support of the Black community for Biden. And it’s true — Biden has seen a decrease in support, especially among Black farmers in the state.

When it comes down to it, Georgians have severe election fatigue. We are tired of the attack ads on television, tired of political bickering and, most of all, tired of the candidates.

According to polling by the Associated Press, a rematch of the 2016 election is widely unpopular, yet here we are. We join the public in our lack of enthusiasm for the candidates. Biden has always suffered from lukewarm Democratic support, and Trump has successfully managed to push moderates even further away with his felony convictions and controversial rhetoric.

The debate tomorrow will potentially serve as a major turning point in the race for Georgia. Biden will either use this opportunity to energize Democrats, build momentum and explain to everyday voters how his administration is helping them, or he will falter and solidify Trump’s standing in the state.

Porsha White, the Biden campaign’s Georgia state director, says, “The debate will highlight for Georgians and people across the country the clear choice in this election between President Biden’s vision for America, where freedoms are protected, and every Georgian has a fair shot, and Donald Trump’s pledge to serve as a dictator on day one.”

So the question remains: Do the candidates really value Georgia voters? Both campaigns seem more concerned with getting votes than about the voters themselves. While it is easy in a campaign to get caught up in why the other candidate is flawed, Georgia voters desperately need to be reminded why they should even vote at all. 

While we may be exhausted by the candidates, we should never take for granted the right to vote nor the enormous responsibility we bear as citizens in determining the leaders of our Republic. And while the numbers will consume the campaigns, they should never forget who they are working for: the everyday person with everyday dilemmas — can they find a job, will they be able to afford their groceries, are they safe in their neighborhoods, are they better off today than they were yesterday?

Amid all of the uncertainty of the upcoming debate and the 2024 election, one thing is certain: Georgians shouldn’t be taken for granted.

The post 2024 Presidential Debate: do Trump and Biden value Georgia voters? appeared first on Technique.

Highlighting the great achievements of our student body

We at the Technique attempt to embody the voice of the student body. Through many of our consensus discussions and published articles, we are critical of organizations, movements and laws. We comment on administration, the Institute as a whole and the experiences of students. However, it is remiss to ignore the amazing work done by student organizations here on campus year after year. Thus, in the final consensus of the semester, we wish to highlight some of the student organizations who have thoroughly impressed us, and have brought great initiatives to Tech.

To start, we would like to acknowledge the Tech Muslim Student Association. They raised an extremely impressive $73,823 to send to Gaza through fundraising. They also worked hard to foster a strong sense of community during a time of immense hardship. Outside of religious student organizations, other affinity groups made large strides during this year. The Tech Filipino Student Association made large expansions this year and even conducted a large festival titled Halo Halo, chock-full of games, food, raffling and tables from various organizations. Hispanic sororities and fraternities were recently re-chartered and are currently in the process of joining the Multicultural Pan-hellenic Council. 

The Divine Nine Plaza, as spearheaded by the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), was unveiled this year. The plaza honors the hard work of Black students at Tech and functions as an initiative to recognize these Greek organizations at the Institute. The plaza will also offer a place for NPHC organizations to foster community and programming. 

The Under-Represented Groups in Education (U.R.G.E) forums, conducted by the Tech chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in coordination with Student Government Association (SGA), put a spotlight on Tech’s history with underrepresented minorities. They also spearheaded an U.R.G.E. March for Diversity through Price Gilbert Library to promote diversity, equity and inclusion at the Institute. Another example of promotion of diversity at the Institute is that for the first time in history, both of Tech’s homecoming royalty were women.

Along that vein, the Tech Organization for Social Activism conducted open mic nights, providing an outlet for expression, storytelling and sharing of experiences. The installation of the Veterans Walk of Honor display on campus, as conducted by the Veterans Resource Center, honored the hard work and dedication of retired veterans, while also addressing the Institute’s military history.

The community garden is also now fully open. Students meet once a week on Saturdays, growing a plethora of vegetables. They even conduct cooking demonstrations in the garden, as well as creative gardening workshops with farmers from actual farms. Other community-driven organizations, such as the Tech Community Market, increased the number of student sellers in the market, and the number of thrift shops on campus increased overall. Many of these thrift stores were created by students alone, such as Sigma Nu Secondhand and CKG. 

Overall, our sense of community on campus has strengthened. One new organization, Campus Cats, works together to feed and take care of the cats that live around our buildings. At this point, they are even raising money to pay for one cat’s surgery. Parents with Pups moved to a bigger scale this year, with far more dogs, and even food and Girl Scout cookies. The initiative has even begun at other universities.

With our homecoming men’s football and men’s basketball wins, students rushed the field and court, respectively, celebrating the win and rejuvenating our school spirit and sporting energy. Though short-lived, we appreciated the Tech Hockey bus charter, and hope to see it again next year with even more prolonged success. 

While we cannot highlight every single organization that has made great strides in this year, we applaud every single student and student organization for their efforts to make the Institute a better place each and every day. We cultivate our experience and community together, and no matter the circumstances, we will continue to bind together to create a better tomorrow at Tech. 

The post The Best of the Institute appeared first on Technique.

Do our graduation speakers represent Tech’s values?

The semesterly commencement ceremony honoring the Institute’s graduates is an event that many look forward to and hold dear to their hearts. It is a moment of celebration, an opportunity to uplift first-generation students, encourage those who have overcome other barriers and look to the future. Thus, it only follows that commencement guest speakers should have an equally impactful presence on the McCamish Pavilion stage. We at the Technique endeavor to discuss the value of commencement speakers as a whole, qualities they should possess and qualms with certain choices.

Speakers are an exciting start to an event many students will remember for the entirety of their lives. It is exciting to hear from different speakers and get their perspectives on things like entering the workforce during times of recession or job scarcity. It is a way of connecting a speaker and their story with the student body and inspiring them to do more. It is a means to see an example of someone who made a difference in their field, whether their foundation was built at your institution or not. However, at our Institute, minimal focus is put on commencement speakers, and often, the result is subpar choices in speakers. Whether they are prominent figures or not, the commencement speakers can serve as a stark dichotomy between the student body and the values Tech champions. While the Institute touts diversity and inclusivity and hosts many people of color, the commencement speakers are often white. 

Here at the Technique, we believe Tech should prioritize highlighting people of color and underrepresented minorities who have paved the way for students who followed. Figures like that could provide inspiration to students who are entering fields that are dominated by majority populations. Tech has a tendency to forget to spotlight trailblazers who had to create their place here at the Institute many years ago — a position many students may find themselves in post-grad. 

On the contrary, last Spring’s speaker duo was nothing of the sort; rather, it was two white men. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, a prominent and interesting figure to those of us who care about politics, might not be fully relevant to the intended audience. Similarly, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, a Tech ISYE alum, leads a life that is far from relatable for the graduating class. His speech offered advice regarding the importance of family and the avoidance of material possessions while simultaneously proponing his own brand. Butker does hail from the Institute, and his speech could have been more engaging and encouraging, although it was still enjoyable for many. While we are not privy to the methods of internal review from within Tech, we feel that increased editing and streamlining of guest speeches to align with student interests and values would highly improve the experience of graduates who are looking for guidance. 

Outside of the scope of the Institute alone, many celebrities are invited to conduct commencement speeches, and sometimes are even awarded honorary degrees. However, figures like singer-songwriter Taylor Swift receiving honorary doctorate degrees can take away from the real focus of these events — the graduates. Additionally, it can nullify the achievements of students who have put years of work into accruing these degrees. Many people take on immense burden to get degrees, financially, mentally and more, and giving away degrees for fame cheapens their value.

That said, it can be enjoyable for students to see celebrities at their convocations. It is very different to see people like John Krasinski and Swift, as compared to political figures like Blinken. Further, it would be even more enjoyable if speakers offered more unique commentaries and advice about surviving post-graduation. 

Overall, commencement speakers mean a lot to those sitting in the sea of black gowns and white and gold tassels. Those students are the soul of the Institute and deserve for the commencement organizers to source exciting speakers and streamline their speeches to focus on those same students. Going forward, we hope to see more representation of minority and underrepresented groups at the podium. When walking across that stage, we all deserve to see people who look like us, shake administrators’ hands and feel prepared for anything that might come our way.

The Consensus Opinion reflects the majority opinion of the Editorial Board of the Technique, but not necessarily the opinions of individual editors.

The post Commencement speakers at Tech appeared first on Technique.

Assessing the hold that Apple has on the phone industry

In the past week, the United States Justice Department filed a lawsuit suing Apple Inc., citing violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act through actions such as “Blocking Innovative Super Apps,” “Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps,” “Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets” and more. Apple products, as well as the reliance of many college students on the Apple ecosystem, are highly relevant in all of our daily lives. Thus, we at the Technique wished to discuss the lawsuit as a whole, and its strengths and weaknesses.

The way in which Apple achieved its monopolization of the phone industry does not mirror that of other companies that have been dismantled through the Sherman Antitrust Act. In the case of Google’s antitrust lawsuit, the company was pushing software companies into multi-billion dollar deals to ensure Google is the suggested search software. Irrespective of quality, other companies did not have the means to pay so much money. Rather than actively strong-arming competition and small businesses out of the way, Apple cultivated their so-called “ecosystem” to render certain other devices nearly unusable when interfacing with Apple products. This is most notable with features such as iMessage and FaceTime, which are built into Apple products and cannot be downloaded as third-party apps. Messaging in group chats and sending photos between Androids and iPhones results in a notable decrease in photograph quality, forcing many people onto third-party apps for consistent communication and video. In the United States, this often puts pressure on consumers who can afford it to switch to iPhones to make their communication easier. Even though Apple devices tend to be priced very high, iPhones are considered to be relatively accessible to middle-class America. Apple often subsidizes phones through phone plans, encouraging consumers to buy or finance new phones. Even in younger communities, iPhones are considered trendy and fun; they have been ingrained into our culture. Apple has created a bubble of exclusivity, and even though there may be minimal difference between the iPhone 12 and the iPhone 15, there is no doubt that Apple products possess cultural prominence irrespective of their quality. Due to this exclusivity, it is not necessarily Apple’s problem that the iPhone to iPhone interface is much better than iPhone to Android. Apple is selling the platform and experience, not necessarily the device itself. However, while hindering communication to other devices may help Apple keep their hold on their monopoly, it would better the user experience if iPhone users could freely communicate with everyone. 

The government does not have to break Apple up, but regulations are important to keep their hold on the market in check. Forcing users to use Apple services to the detriment of other companies is indirectly forcing people away from other companies. For example, while people do pay for the security of Apple Pay, Apple should offer other options for in-app purchases. They are making it difficult for people to own phones from other brands.

While government sanctions may artificially even the playing field, thereby hurting competition and curtailing innovation; in the United States, Apple’s monopoly is not paralleled by any other company. They have minimal competition and are free to price their products at exorbitant levels and offer fewer and fewer new features each year — for example, purchase of new iPhones do not even include a wall adapter for the charger as they once did. The United States government is concerningly technologically illiterate, as is repeatedly demonstrated by any hearings with prominent figures such as Mark Zuckerberg and Shou Zi Chew. While it is difficult to put monopoly-busting responsibilities in their hands when some members waste their question time asking how apps connect to Wi-Fi, it is still important to exercise the antitrust laws when needed. 

If a company gets so large that other companies are unable to compete or enter the ring, especially due to intentional actions by the monopoly, then the unethicality of the monopoly is undeniable. The point of the government is to impose artificial regulations. It is possible to maintain the exclusivity and quality of a brand without exploiting the industry as a whole. If the government does not step in, then we will likely cease to see the impressive innovation with which Apple made its name.

The Consensus Opinion reflects the majority opinion of the Editorial Board of the Technique, but not necessarily the opinions of individual editors.

The post Looking at the Apple monopoly appeared first on Technique.

What change do we want to see from Tech in 2024?

From the building of the EcoCommons to alterations in housing procedures to COVID-19 practices, change truly has been the most notable element of the past few years. As this issue marks the first issue of 2024, we at the Technique wish to address some of the changes we wish to see at the Institute in the upcoming year. 

Although Tech has continued expanding and accepting more, one issue has been expanding inclusivity and access to the Institute. The expansion of class size has been attributed to expansion of access to Tech’s education. However, racial diversity is continually lacking. In a city with an almost 48% Black population, only 8% of Tech’s population is Black. It is imperative that Tech expands recruiting from high schools and gears that recruiting towards underclassmen to encourage getting on the right trajectory to be competitive students during the college admissions process. Recruiting alone does not contribute to this issue. Even the traditions of the Institute themselves lack inclusivity. The T-Book, for example, tends to boast photos of white male students from the early days of the Institute. 

These traditions may be an important aspect of life at Tech, but other practices, memorials and occasions do not receive the same treatment. The Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service was not an event that was well-advertised or well-known around campus. Important events such as this one are not given the same respect and emphasis as events such as Freshman Cake Race. Organizations like the Student Government Organization (SGA) must do their part to emphasize the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) portion of their work. Since little has been done in the past outside of existing DEI efforts, SGA must work to place more emphasis on students of color and showcase how they are an important part of the narrative at Tech.

However, the burden of improvement cannot be placed on SGA alone. Student organizations are forced to rely heavily on SGA funding policies. While leaders are in charge of their organization’s money, they do not even get to see their own bank accounts, which puts undue stress on leaders. At other universities, organizations such as engineering/building-driven organizations, which require tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding, are able to lean on their colleges to give them funding. If the college of engineering was able to fund these large organizations, then smaller, college-unaffiliated organizations could be encouraged to grow. At present, students and organizations are forced to pull from extremely inefficient pools, pools that are drying out early on in the year. SGA should receive more institutional support via support from individual colleges, but the trend must be broken through schools like the College of Engineering and the College of Computing. 

Tech’s heavy emphasis on computer science and engineering can also sometimes take away from other great schools with great accomplishments. While we advertise and celebrate STEM aspects, we tend to ignore the Institute’s other successful involvements. Going forward, the Institute must showcase diversity and accomplishments in all fields. Additionally, non-STEM schools often lack acknowledgement from administration. For example, the computer science career fair is at Mercedes-Benz Stadium, while there is a much smaller and less known career fair for Industrial Design. The College of Design lacks funding even for materials such as poster boards and students taking certain classes are expected to pay for their own Adobe subscriptions. 

There is no doubt that the Institute has money and support, but students do not see where it goes. With such high tuition and fees that students are paying, giving more money back to the students via resources is necessary. Tech certainly has the means and interest in improving the lives of its students and organizations. Students are more willing than ever to lend a hand in thinking of ideas and ways to optimize the inner workings of certain aspects of Tech. The right people just have to be willing to listen.

The Consensus Opinion reflects the majority opinion of the Editorial Board of the Technique, but not necessarily the opinions of individual editors.

The post Tech’s Resolutions appeared first on Technique.

As we enter Pride Month, we at the Technique editorial board wish to discuss the phenomenon of rainbow capitalism, which has become very prevalent in the past few years, especially with public pushes for corporate progressiveness. Rainbow capitalism is described as the influence of capitalism and consumerism on the LGBTQIA+ movement. While the facts surrounding rainbow capitalism are complex in nature, we wish to discuss some of its pros and cons. 

One such qualm is the brief nature of LGBTQIA+ support. These Pride campaigns often last only for the span of Pride Month. The efforts come across as performative; companies should instead continue to show their support throughout the year, not just during the highly visible month of June. The month-long pro-LGBTQIA+ spurt seems as though companies will only support and uplift the LGBTQIA+ community if they can benefit monetarily. 

Target pulling their Pride month products exemplifies how this line of merchandise is performative. After facing backlash from critics, Target immediately removed some of their Pride month products, which demonstrated how willing they were to appease those who oppose them and take a step back in their support.

This is not only the case with Pride-adjacent issues. Products like Walmart’s “Juneteenth Cheesecake Ice Cream” are an example of how a company’s supposed support ends up being offensive and disrespectful. Along the same vein, shallow efforts like changing a logo’s colors to rainbow, as exhibited by LinkedIn and Xbox, is by no means a show of genuine support. Even former President Donald Trump launched a pride collection, but rather than donating proceeds to LGBTQIA+ organizations, they went towards his reelection campaign. Many of these measures are ingenuine and appear as attempts to make money or give in to pressure.

Additionally, there are more effective ways to support LGBTQIA+ communities.  Progress towards more expansive collections in stores would be a far more effective means of driving inclusivity forward. It is imperative that products must service the groups that they intend to support. An example of this is Target selling binders, a vital and often difficult to find tool for non-binary and trans communities, in an easily accessible way thorough their stores and online.

 Hiring a more inclusive staff, as well as fostering a welcoming and safe environment for all minorities, is an important step in supporting these communities. Employees should feel comfortable communicating their needs and should also feel that those needs are truly being heard. While Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity (DEI) initiatives can be difficult to successfully cultivate, they are a necessary part of making positive change in supporting minorities like the LGBTQIA+ community. Without sufficient resources and time and effort being put into DEI programs, they are not taken seriously.  

It is extremely important that companies speak up and take measures to support the LGBTQIA+ community and other minorities. Certain states and their people in power, such as Florida and Governor Ron DeSantis, have enacted anti-LGBTQIA+ policy; it would be highly beneficial if companies, large and small, spoke out against such legislation. An example of this is AMC threatening to stop filming its hit show “The Walking Dead” in Georgia if the “Religious Freedom” Act, which created allowance for discrimination and termination of employees based on sexual orientation, was passed. Making changes both internally, by making space for these communities within their organizations, and externally, by standing up for these communities publicly, is the only way we can successfully uplift these communities and make an impact in the years.

Going into the end of the academic year, we on the Technique Editorial Board acknowledge that our consensus pieces veer on the more critical side, and we tend to be reproving of many issues that we discuss. However, as the semester comes to a close, we wish to highlight the strongest and most impactful aspect of our
campus: the students. 

This year, many new organizations arose and developed their niches on campus, expanding among the populace and making a notable impact. One great example of this is GT Creatives. 

The organization is geared towards the development of a collective of talented students to embrace creativity. At a school like Tech, with its STEM focus and diversity of interests, we lacked a space for students to engage in creative activities such as art, modeling or fashion. As an inclusive community filled with people of color from all majors, GT Creatives has filled this niche.

Another example of this is the Organization for Social Activism (OSA). Founded by a first-year who felt the campus lacked an organization with a focus on political activism, OSA has expanded incredibly. The turnout for the Stop Cop City protest on campus was immense. 

India Club and Pakistani Student Association’s joint Iftar event is another representation of community on campus. The event, celebrating Ramadan, allowed students to put their political differences aside and celebrate cultural holidays. The LGBTQIA Resource Center continues its impressive work in fostering a community of inclusivity and acceptance on campus. From hosting drag shows to events enabling discrete alternatives for students who are not publicly out, the center pushes for creating an environment where students can discuss their identities, mental health and experiences. 

SMILE also continues its far-reaching efforts to improve mental health on campus. The annual March Gladness events always function as a source of enjoyment for students. From fun activities, to free King of Pops, to the iconic free T-shirt, the events always envelope students in a shield of happiness from their stressors and work. 

SMILE’s collaboration with VOICE, the initiative focused on preventing sexual violence, has done important work in creating a more comfortable and safe space for people to discuss associated issues, experiences and their impacts. 

The rock painting to spread sexual assault awareness and Take Back the Night events are some ways their message has been reaching more and more students. Further, VOICE’s peer educators are just one example of VOICE’s many resources for victims and those who want to learn more about alleviating the issue. 

While the work of these student organizations is irreplaceable and necessary at a school like Tech, the responsibility to create a diverse, inclusive and accepting environment on campus should lie with the Institute’s administration. The weight of addressing issues like health and well-being should not fall only on the shoulders of student organizations.

Per the Technique canon, we encourage the Institute to do more to alleviate this burden from students. However, more importantly, we also wish to recognize those who have worked to make this campus into one we are proud to report on.