As the votes come in on many hotly debated issues, we wanted to use this week to focus on a topic that may not be as present in this year’s election cycle, but is still important — the question of whether places of worship should be tax exempt.

Before we even dive into the discussion, it is important to recognize that the definition of what constitutes a place of worship, for tax purposes at least, is very vague. 

This point is exemplified by Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption, a legally recognized church created by comedian John Oliver in 2015 solely to prove the point of how easy it was to create a church with tax exemption status. Oliver created and disbanded the church within the span of several months, showing how easy it was to gain the benefit of tax exemption.

However, the definition of a church is also increasingly broad since it covers such a wide range of places of worship that serve a very diverse group of communities. Because of this, it is difficult to come to overarching conclusion statements that would suit a variety of churches. 

For example, many may point out that larger places of worship have been very visibly shown to operate for profit and consequently should experience the same government oversight as a business. However, this does not account for countless other smaller places of worship that help support impoverished communities or religions that do not place a focus on monetary transactions. 

In that same line of thought, it may be easy to offer tax exemption to places of worship that can be shown to contribute to the common good. This may seem like a clear cut solution: we provide churches with the same tax exemption benefits as non-profits, only when they have been proven to act like one. However, this highlights the important question of how we would measure the positive impact of an organization on the community.

Placing the government in a position to judge which organizations have made a significant contribution to the public good allows the government to yield tax exemptions like a form of approval, blurring the line between church and state and easily allowing for discrimination. 

Moreover, it puts places of worship that may serve lower socioeconomic communities or organizations that do not ask for donations in a position where they may be shut down due to an inability to meet tax requirements. 

There are so many facets to a place of worship that we at the Technique may not even recognize factors that could be vital parts of the conversation. 

In light of this, we encourage transparency with finances in places of worship and if taxation is the decided upon path, we believe that a method of progressive taxation may be useful. Progressive taxation could be more dynamic, rather than concrete. Although not the perfect solution, we believe that a progressive tax could be one possible way of accounting for the financial differences between various places of worship.

Additionally, by having increased transparency about the finances of places of worship, we hope to at least provide government oversight in preventing malicious financial behavior. 

When faced with a question laced with as much nuance as the question of exempting places of worship from taxation, we think the best option is to stay away from conclusive, one-size-fit-all solutions.

With the release of the course catalog this week and the beginning of the registration imminent, we at the Technique wanted to discuss the registration process and have a larger conversation about the flow of courses at the Institute. 

Most importantly, we encourage more clarity for the Institute in all aspects of registration. For example, as Tech’s incoming class size only increases, the question of how many sections of which courses should be offered becomes more complicated and far less clear to students. Certain sections of courses, especially prerequisites that freshmen need, are essential to the flow of courses Tech sets out for its students. When these are disrupted, it is difficult for students — especially first-years who are still unfamiliar with the academic system — to ensure that they get back on their desired track.

In addition, part of the reason we feel that students are struggling to adapt to difficulties in registration is the lack of support from advisors. Advisors are often knowledgeable about traditional paths that students may follow but may not be as helpful in other situations such as aiding transfer students. This presents a unique challenge since it is often these students, who lack the resources and are facing a difficult transition, that are unable to get support from their advisors. This also highlights the fact that there is often more nuance to registration than advisors could reasonably know. For example, there are certain courses that are heralded as difficult courses within majors and are not recommended to be taken together, but not all advisors would not be able to provide this information.

Moreover, the lack of clarity is not just limited to the current registration process but also to the deficit of information regarding future courses. Certain courses that are required for majors are only available in certain semesters, but this information is not highly publicized and consequently makes it difficult for students to figure out their courses past the current year. While we understand that there are unexpected aspects of registration, such as a sudden faculty departure, that cannot be planned for, we still encourage the Institute to provide as much information as possible regarding future course offerings. 

Finally, we also encourage the administration to change their dialog around students who take more than four years to graduate. While there has been great improvement in how students talk about five-year college plans, the administration still creates a stigma around it by their reluctance to highlight it. Multiple stories of students graduating in less than four years populate Tech’s social media, but it is rare to find a post highlighting the accomplishment of students who take more than four years.

In fact, we encourage Tech to begin to move away from the idea of a four-year, five-year or six-year plan. Rather, we encourage Tech to focus on emphasizing a specialized plan for each student, separate from the years it takes them to graduate. 

By doing this, we think that students will be free of the pressure of needing to fit all their credits into four years. Multiple news outlets and articles continuously perpetuate the idea that a four-year college plan is the standard and is easy enough to complete if you just take about 15 hours a semester. However, Tech is not like every other school. The student body has realized that, but it is time for the administration to do the same.

As the title of this issue may suggest, it’s time for Homecoming, and with it comes a slew of traditions as old as the Institute itself. We at the Technique would like to take moment to not only recognize our favorite traditions — Homecoming or otherwise — but also the importance that traditions can hold for your college experience.

The first tradition we’d like to recognize is the Freshman Cake Race. While the early start time and requisite exercise make it the least favorite tradition for some, the race holds a special place in the hearts of many students, especially because it caters uniquely to freshmen. 

For many freshmen, it can be difficult to get involved with activities on campus — especially those as daunting as traditions baked into the Institute’s core — so it is nice that the cake race aims to specifically provide freshmen with an avenue to participate. 

The second tradition we’d like to recognize is the Mini 500, the annual tricycle race around Peters Parking Deck. The Mini 500, unlike the Freshman Cake Race, plays to the strengths of Tech’s students and allows them to do what they do best: engineer. Tasked with ensuring that a tricycle lasts eight laps, teams go to new and amazingly creative lengths to secure victory. The race is a spectacle to watch and definitely should not be missed.

The third tradition we’d like to recognize is  Midnight Bud, which is not a very documented tradition but is definitely widely loved. During finals week, students unofficially gather in front of Brittain Dining Hall around midnight to commiserate their woes in a celebratory manner. With instruments and singing, this unusually lively night of finals week precedes Midnight Breakfast and is a great opportunity to get away from the books for a little bit.

Some smaller traditions that we would also like to recognize are the practice of leaving pennies at Sidewalk’s grave and the Technique’s very own annual “To Hell With Georgia” issue. Tech students believe that leaving pennies at Sidewalk’s grave will grant them good luck on their finals.  Even if you don’t have the time to stop by one of the bigger events, taking a moment to leave a penny can be a great way to participate in a tradition. The “To Hell With Georgia” Issue is the Technique’s yearly satire issue that aims to poke fun at

UGA during rivalry week and is an excellent way to show clean, old-fashioned hate.

Whether big or small, traditions are inextricably intertwined with the Tech experience. However, we would be remiss to not recognize the fact that some of these traditions are inherently inaccessible. For example, it may be difficult to participate in the Mini 500 if you are not a part of a student organization, a very likely situation for freshmen. Another example would be the Wreck Parade, which consists of floats that are primarily created by fraternities, limiting the involvement of students not in Greek life.

We at the Technique urge Tech students to work to make traditions more accessible. Even if such changes may upset alumni, it is important to remember that traditions serve one group: the students. If you don’t find your college experience in the traditional Tech traditions, we encourage you to go out and make your own.

Whether it’s going to Waffle House with your roommates every finals week or participating in the Wreck Parade, you get to create your own traditions and, with it, your college experience.

With campus entering the thick of recruiting season, students — more than ever — are faced with the question of professional standards and how to conform to them. However, we at the Technique think that there is a bigger and more important question at stake: do these standards of professionalism still have a place in today’s workplace?

The current professional standards are set up in such a way that they benefit certain communities to the detriment of others. Professional standards, such as expectations of dress codes, serve as another obstacle for people in lower-income communities to enter the workforce. Minorities are put in a position where they have to choose between being themselves or conforming to professional standards and, consequently, being able to get a job.

For example, the dress code for women is often far more strictly scrutinized than it is for men. Furthermore, the standard for approprite workplace apparel is higher, and in many ways, is catered to the male gaze. Looking at common workplace accessories, many items, such as heels, are deeply impractical and painful, but are still an expected part of the workplace. Another example is how many jobs, especially those in the service industry, require female employees to wear makeup to be considered “presentable.”

Moreover, these standards are even stricter when it comes to people of color, especially women. The topic of Black hair has been highly politicized, despite the fact that it is an unchangeable genetic trait. 

The idea that Black hairstyles are not “clean” or “neat” sends an underlying message that any outward presentation that does not fit neatly into the idea of the European-centric standards of beauty is not welcome in the workplace.

Even more damaging is that oftentimes companies leave these standards vague while enforcing them harshly. While they may not explicitly state that certain styles of clothing — for example, a certain length of a skirt — are frowned upon, you will still receive criticism in the office regardless. 

The looseness of these standards forces minorities into a position where they feel the need to overcompensate and change parts of themselves that may come into conflict with these very loose standards to avoid risking their chances at getting a job. The fear of being singled out at your job due to your outward appearance is a very real concern for many people, and can very easily impact many other aspects of your life.

The possibility of missing out on future opportunities keeps many people from expressing themselves creatively through mediums such as tattoos and piercings. In addition, for people who are gender fluid, it can be very difficult for them to determine how to conform to dress code standards which can force them to feel like they need to hide that part of themselves. 

At the end of the day, professional standards are a way to maintain the homogeneity of the workplace and prevent further diversification.

As we name every slightly differing feature of a person, from accents to hair, as “non-professional”, we are effectively labeling them as outsiders. The problem does not just stop at the workplace; it affects how we raise our children and how we see the world. 

As young as elementary schools, kids are taught to hide their accents, look a certain way and essentially conform to a standard of unity. 

Dismantling the professional standard and redefining the workplace environment will not be an easy task.

Companies such as Google and Facebook are perfect examples of how workplace professionalism is not required for success. As we reframe the definition of professionalism, we can also begin to reframe how we view standards.  

With the waves of environmental trends taking over social media, from choosing reusable tote bags instead of single-use bags to metal straws instead of plastic straws, small, individual changes seem to define the climate activist movement — now more than ever. However, as climate change becomes more pressing than ever, we, at the Technique, would like to explore the question of whether this is the right direction for the climate movement. 

First, we would like to establish that we do not want to disregard the merit that small actions hold. Every choice you make to be more environmentally friendly is a manifestation of your own individual sovereignty and a direct result of your investment in working against climate change. However, sometimes this investment can come with its own consequences, since small lifestyle changes may feel as if you are doing more than actually you are, which may limit the extent you explore other avenues of activism. With the severity of the climate crisis as it is today, these small, individual changes are simply not enough anymore — rather, we need collective action on a larger scale.

It would be remiss to not note that collective action is the result of large-scale individual action, but the climate activism movement is simply not in a place where it is organized enough to reach that level of unity. Moreover, the people who are most impacted by the climate crisis — those in developing nations — are also the people who oftentimes do not have access to the individual actions we champion in the war against global warming. Collective action aims to hold the main enactors of climate change — the government and major corporations — liable for the consequences of their own problematic behavior. Currently, the pressure to remedy corporations’ impact on the environment falls to the consumer as they package guilt in each recycling sign on a plastic bag.

While individual action is what will eventually become a movement, the emphasis on individual responsibility frees the government from actually having to hold corporations liable. 

An example of the collective power of the individual when unified to hold corporations responsible can be seen relatively close to home at Starbucks. After the movement to “save the turtles” by switching out single-use plastic straws to metal straws, there was a rise in customers bringing their own straws to coffee shops, including to Starbucks. In addition, plastic straws began to signify pollution — they became tangible proof of the pollution that corporations work so hard to hide under sustainability initiatives. Starbucks eventually transferred to a less-straw reliant model — a large-scale change precipitated by a tide of small, individual changes. However, at the end of the day, the changes can still be argued to lack meaning since Starbucks still primarily runs on single-use plastic cups. 

It is difficult and even disparaging to minimize the choices people are making to live a more environmentally friendly life, however with an issue at the level or urgency of the climate crisis, we need change and we need it now. You can cut out meat and plastic and those are all great ways to help, but the only way to actually create meaningful change for ourselves and the next generation is to do the gritty work. We need to call our representatives, petition, take to the streets to protest and actively work to dismantle the infrastructure that has set our planet up for failure. 

However, the fact that we have not been collectivized at this point speaks very strongly about not only the difficulty to come together, but the massive amounts of indifference people still carry. Collective action is what will actually create the change. Nothing brings a new world faster than a revolution, but revolutions take years to happen. In the meantime, there’s no harm in skipping the plastic straws.

We at the Technique recognize that often in these consensus pieces we tend to be overly negative and vaguely disparaging. However, as the year draws to an end and we publish the last issue of the year, we want to instead highlight the best parts of campus: the students.

A perfect example of the truly monumental work students can do to make this campus better is the work of SMILE, a student organization dedicated to “Spreading Messages In Love and Encouragement.” From chalked positive sayings on the sidewalk to heartfelt messages hung on trees, the students that make up SMILE have gone out of their way to make the Institute a more positive place to exist. Furthermore, the amount of effort the executive board and members put into consistently showing up in the small and big ways is highly commendable. 

Whether it be complimenting students to hosting events at the scale of March Gladness, SMILE, in the relatively short time it has existed on our campus, has already drastically improved the lives of many and put a smile on countless faces. 

Another organization that has been doing way more than just skating by is the Yellow Jacket Roller Derby team. They have greatly expanded their ranks from previous years and they truly reflect the diversity of the student body. While they might be aggressive and violent in the rink, the team has been nothing but a safe space for the dozens of students on it who come from incredibly different backgrounds. GymShark, a fitness brand with nearly six million followers on Instagram, even did a story on the roller derby team and the tireless work they’ve done to build an inclusive environment for each and every member on the team. 

Pride Alliance also went above and beyond in organizing counter-protests and coming to the defense of Lia Thomas and LGBTQIA+ people everywhere in the face of prejudice and harassment on campus. 

Moreover, their weekly events have played a large part in building a queer community at Tech while also facilitating discussion on important topics such as mental health, workplace discrimination, and coming out. 

We would also like to recognize their unwavering dedication to being accessible to each and every student and being more than willing to make any necessary accommodations to accomplish this mission. 

Tech’s African American Student Union is another organization on campus that has been doing an immeasurable amount of work to make campus a more welcoming place for all students. 

Many of their safe space events and panels aim to give Black students an opportunity to have discussions about often overlooked issues and ask questions they may otherwise lack a forum to ask about. 

For example, the organization hosted a panel during Black History Month on being Black in a predominantly white institution, like Tech. These questions, while difficult, are often overlooked or taken over by other voices, so we applaud AASU for not being afraid to place them at the forefront.

Much of the work these student organizations are doing should be done by the Institute. It should not fall to student organizations to host diversity events, build safe spaces, or address mental health issues. However, time and time again the burden falls on students.

In our last consensus of the school year, we — as always — call for the Institute to do more. But, more importantly, we want to recognize the students who have done the most to help make Tech a campus we are proud to write about.

The 2022 Oscars were, for lack of a better word, surprising. The reverberations of the shock could be felt in the resurgence of a question that has plagued artists, critics and audiences alike for as long as art has been culturally relevant: can we separate art from the artists? 

The question of the boundaries between an artist and their work is a hotly contested topic as fans rush to the defense of some of their favorite artists and works. The interpretation of art is by definition deeply personal, which definitely contributes to the hotly contested nature of the boundaries between an artist and their work. Because of the meaningful connections we form with art, oftentimes the cancellation of artists leaves us feeling cognitive dissonance as we struggle to reconcile the love of a work with a distaste for its creator.

This commonly leaves audiences in an uncomfortable position where they are unable to separate works, such as Harry Potter, from treasured memories or their identity, but also can feel guilt when confronted with past actions or ideologies of the artist. People deal with this in very different ways. Some people choose not to financially support these franchises while others choose to completely dissociate the artist from their work. Many in the groups affected by the behavior of artists even choose to reclaim the media by creating their own works. For example, drama tropes such as StarKids have created comprehensive creations such as A Very Potter Musical that actually address the many issues people have pointed out with J.K. Rowling’s work.

The distinction between the art and artist is a line that is made even more blurry by the difficulty of defining what even constitutes behavior that is problematic enough to mar someone’s work. 

The line between problematic and unforgivable is incredibly subjective as people are scorned by the public for a range of behaviors from racist remarks to literal crimes. Furthermore, the cultural significance of works of criminally problematic authors makes it even more difficult to conscientiously consume media. For example, the contribution of major literary figures like Ernest Hemingway is unquestionable, but it is irresponsible to simply recognize him for his literary merit without also acknowledging the harm he has caused. Many of his works, subtextually or directly, contain hateful rhetoric, which may have been the norm for the time, but are very controversial now.

As major figures in the art world, both past and present, are called into question more frequently, many point to concerns that “cancel culture” is getting out of hand. While the instantaneous nature of the internet has allowed for the cancellation of artists to be sometimes too hasty, canceling remains the strongest tool in the hands of audiences in deciding who has a public platform. 

In a world, where casting agents, academy institutions, and production companies hold nearly all the power in deeming what is relevant and funded, audiences are often left without a choice in what media is being created. Canceling someone remains one of the only ways we, as an audience, can hold someone accountable. As alleged pedophiles and abusers continue to receive awards and populate the big screen, cancel culture — while sometimes problematic in itself — remains one of the few barriers separating the art and artist. 

The identity of an artist versus the merit of their work is as complicated as it is relevant. At the end of the day, it is the choice of an individual on how they want to view these lines. We urge you to make your own choice but remember that every one of your actions or inactions carries ramifications. No one can force you to support an artist, but as times change and art remains at the center of culture, simply choosing to ignore the actions of an artist outside of their work is a regression.