As the elections for the undergraduate president and vice president of Student Government Association (SGA) begin, Sam Ellis and Ajanta Choudhury’s terms draw to an end. Reflecting on their tenure, the Technique believes that in the face of a uniquely difficult year, they have done a commendable job working to address problems. The Editorial Board still recognizes many of their campaign goals were unmet, and SGA, as an institution, still has many issues.

First, Ellis and Choudhury have done a fantastic job addressing smaller institutional problems. Highlights of their term include pushing for the Office of the Student Integrity (OSI) to be fully staffed, creating a syllabus repository, and prioritizing increased transparency of SGA initiatives. For those not familiar with OSI, it is an institution on campus that focuses on processing student misconduct cases. However, in the past, OSI has been historically understaffed and maintained a massive backlog of cases. Ellis and Choudhury’s choice to prioritize staffing OSI, a problem that not many people knew about but was still impacting many students, was representative of a common theme in the problems they chose to solve. 

The syllabus repository was also another highlight of their campaign. By crowdsourcing syllabi from Tech students, SGA was able to add a feature to Course Critique, a popular grade distribution platform maintained by SGA, where students would be able to view syllabi for classes before they register for them. Creating a syllabus repository was one of the campaign promises that Ellis and Choudhury ran on, and it was encouraging to see their immense success in accomplishing it. 

The Editorial Board also commends Elliot and Choudhury on their efforts to facilitate communication on campus. For example, their addition of a vigil request form was an important effort, on behalf of SGA, to better communicate information about student deaths — something with which the Institute has struggled. Moreover, their increased social media presence and monthly newsletters allow students to be more connected with the work of their student government and understand their impact on them. Student Government is fundamentally an organization for the student body, but if no one on campus has input on what they do or even knows about their work, SGA fails to accomplish one of its base purposes. 

However, with this transparency, it is also important to note that Ellis and Choudhury have still remained frustratingly vague on many of their other goals. Even in their Executive Review last semester, many of their progress statements lacked nuance or explanation. Furthermore, without this nuance, it is easy for the accomplishments of other students and student organizations who helped with these projects to get lost under the larger umbrella of SGA’s accomplishments.

Another issue with Ellis and Choudhury’s term is the disconnect between their campaign promises and what they actually accomplished. This is reflective of a larger issue: the sheer size of the goals they set out to accomplish. Many of the goals they promised to achieve, such as the bar on Tech Square, were very large projects that would require years of work. However, SGA has rarely been able to accomplish this feat in the past, given that they lack a cohesive method for project continuation with each new campaign and executive board bringing its own priorities to the office. 

Considering this, the Editorial Board urges this year’s candidates to bring new ideas to the table while also remembering the initiatives that have been years in the making. Many of the larger-scale reforms, like the restructuring of the Institute’s mental health services, are projects that will take years and involve countless outside forces. 

However, if the new executive board simply gives up on these projects, it makes the work of every previous president, representative or student that has advocated for change mean nothing. The Technique’s hope for the upcoming election is to change this narrative and to see Ellis’ and Choudhury’s initiatives get the follow-through they deserve.

As students begin to return to campus, many issues have become increasingly apparent, specifically campus accessibility. Even in light of legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), many disabled students have expressed that getting around campus still remains a continuous struggle. 

Tech may be ADA compliant, but they are in no way readily accessible. Although newer buildings have worked towards creating a more accessible environment, several outdoor environments and older buildings still remain unavailable for many students. Furthermore, Atlanta’s elevation is one of the biggest problems in creating accessible architecture on campus. Features on campus such as Freshman Hill that may seem like a minor inconvenience for able-bodied students are often an insurmountable obstacle for people with disabilities. 

For many students with disabilities, the only way to get around campus is by going in and out of buildings constantly, so they can utilize elevators and indoor ramps. However, many doors on campus lock at night and even those that are available by Buzzcard access are not usually the ADA doors, which further complicates the issue. This forces students to either limit their hours on campus or wait for assistance, an inherent impediment to the ideas of independence that college champions. 

Furthermore, students with academic disabilities often struggle with gaining access to the resources they need to succeed on campus. For example, many students are forced to negotiate their own accommodations instead of receiving support from people who are supposed to advocate for them in these settings. The actual process of being able to even apply for accommodations is often long and arduous — forcing students to go through extensive, expensive testing to get the correct paperwork.

While all of these facets of campus are technically ADA compliant, they, by no means, provide students with the accessibility they need to successfully navigate campus physically, emotionally and academically. This is a testament to a larger issue around the nation. Even though campuses and institutions are compliant, that does not mean they are meeting the needs of people with the disabilities. Often ADA compliance is worn as proof that your institution is truly for everyone — but like many other facets of corporate and public change, it is mostly performative, nothing more than a checkmark.

Being compliant is not enough because the legislation defining compliant is sorely lacking at times. For examples, there is very little in fire codes expanding on escape routes for people with disabilities. In emergencies, buildings like Clough can be deadly for those with physical disabilities since there are few escape routes that do not involve the use of elevators.

Tech, as a proclaimed paragon of innovation, needs to do better to ensure that it is as open and diverse as it claims. Many smaller firms do not have access to the resources necessary to ensure their projects are ADA compliant, especially since it is extremely difficult to find resources on how to create ADA buildings. However, Tech cannot hide behind these excuses as they have access to countless resources.

Clubs on campus like ABLE Alliance, Pride Alliance and SCPC have gone out of their way to make their events more accessible and to raise awareness of the issues that people with disabilities face. Their continued need to advocate for students is reflective of the institute’s resistance to meaningful change. Newer initiatives, like transit vehicles for people with disabilities or spaces on the buses for people with disabilities, are often difficult to use on a daily basis. 

Changes to the definition of accessibility need to extend past institutional change. There must be legislative standards — holding all institutions to a higher standard. 

People with disabilities deserve more than the bare minimum. They deserve more than being forced to take  unnecessarily complicated pathways and being limited to only one route between places. 

Freedoms like choosing which route you can take or being able to get to class easily are privileges that abled people take for granted, and we need to push our government and our campus to do better by their students — all their students. 

In March of 2020, the administration announced the closure of both the Crosland and Clough roofs for the construction and installwation of an architectural piece of art. 

Now, nearly two years later, the full reopening of both roofs has been delayed in light of unprecedented issues in starting construction. Facing the indefinite closure of the roofs, many students have called for the reopening of the roofs, or at the very least the Clough roof, until construction begins.

At the Technique, we support the reopening of the Clough rooftop specifically, and while we urge the reopening of the roof, we also recognize the danger the roofs have posed in the past — both as an issue of public safety and a mental health risk.

However, we believe that the reopening of the roof with proper precautions and acknowledgments from the Institution could greatly benefit the student body and aid Georgia Tech in its mission of addressing its mental health crisis.

Prior to its closure last spring, the rooftops, especially the Clough rooftop, served as a central meeting location on campus–a beautiful view of the sunset, a warm study spot on a spring day, or even a relaxing place to host class. 

With the closure of the Student Center and Tech’s already lacking assortment of congregation spaces, the shut down of the roofs has exacerbated Tech’s shortage of non-academic spaces for students.

Looking back to previous years, it is easy for many students to recall fond memories of a time and reminisce on time spent with friends and classmates. However, even as we remember better times, it is impossible to separate sentiment and memory of the roofs from the tragic incidents that have occurred there in the past. 

The roofs, especially Crosland Tower, have been the source of multiple suicide attempts — some within the span of the same few weeks. 

Whether you were in the building when it happened or you weren’t even a student yet, when we look up at the roof, we remember these attempts and the impact they had on the student community. 

Buildings hold memories, and Tech’s refusal to acknowledge its very dangerous mental health problem allows its campus to continue to be colored by its failures to support students. 

Even in official statements released by administrators, the reason the roof is closed is always cited as “public safety,” with no reference to the devastation that has occurred there. 

Deeper than Georgia Tech’s refusal to acknowledge its issues is the Institute’s resistance to meaningful change to its mental health response. Since these attempts, Tech has done little to help its students and address the root cause of these issues — its failing mental health services and its academic culture rooted in stress and pressure. The trauma of a moment lasts generations, and as Tech ignores and hides its issues under art installations, it fails its students, forcing them to relive the experience over and over as nothing is done to fix it, allowing the cycle to repeat.

We urge Tech to finally break the cycle — to acknowledge its failings and work to fix them. Reopening the roofs is the first step towards allowing students to reclaim campus areas and making Tech a more welcoming environment. Even if it is simply letting students hold club meetings or classes on the roof, allowing students on the roof ­— with proper precautions — is a step towards making the roof more than a testament to tragedy.

However, simply opening the roof isn’t enough. We urge the Institute to also take this as an opportunity to address its issues and work towards finding a solution to the root causes. Even with the addition of art and barriers, the core of the issue remains unsolved as resources, like CARE, remain woefully understaffed and underprepared to deal with the magnitude of the issue. 

We believe that the mental health benefit of allowing students to enjoy a new communal space will far outweigh the negative aspects it poses. 

As we move forward into the new semester, we believe that it is an important step towards the future to reopen the roofs and to allow students to reclaim a vital part of campus. 

The Braves winning the World Series for the first time in 26 years was a major cause for celebration.

Between some grade schools getting the day off to fans gathering for the victory parade to students here on Tech’s campus singing and marching in the streets after the big win, fans erupted in celebration across Atlanta and beyond to treasure a victory that some thought they would never see in their lifetimes.

But when cheering turns to chanting and a crowd of mostly white fans proudly starts participating in the Braves’ infamous tomahawk chop, what was once a celebration of their favorite sports team turns into mockery of Native American people that needs to be put to an end.

The “chop,” as Braves fans call it, is part of a tradition where fans yell a “war chant” and swing their arms in a tomahawk chopping motion at key moments in the game as a way to rally team spirit.

Fans may not realize it, but this is problematic in many ways. For starters, it is dehumanizing.

Native Americans being a mascot for a sports teams likens a whole ethnicity to an ancient mystic race or even to animals which are both commonly used for sports team mascots.

When thousands of people, most of whom are white, collectively imitate and make fun of this group of people in the stands of a baseball stadium, it is insulting and humiliating.

Sadly, the Braves have a long history of disrespectfully using Native American imagery as part of the team’s “brand.”

In the 70s, the Braves had a live Native American mascot named Chief Noc-A-Homa who would perform out of a teepee beyond the outfield wall. A tomahawk was added to the Braves jersey and merchandise logo in 1990. And until 2019, foam tomahawks were placed in fans’ seats to encourage “chopping” throughout the game.

While most of this imagery has been done away with due to public backlash, the chop still remains and for whatever reason despite the tradition’s obvious racist connotations, the Braves do not seem to want to do anything about it.

Teams like Cleveland, whose baseball team recently changed their name and mascot from the “Indians” to the “Guardians,” have demonstrated that change is possible.

With that being said, it is quite puzzling that there is still a hesitation from the Braves to implement a top-down rebrand that does not harm anybody instead of continuing to knowingly dehumanize a community of people.

There are so many better ways to represent the rich culture of Atlanta through sports than to keep choosing to conform to historic racism that is long overdue for change.

The fans are not to blame here. Because of the team’s inaction, this motion has become so ingrained in the Atlanta Braves tradition that people do not even realize their participation in the outward projection of racism when they are cheering on the team with the chop. However, the chop is still in their hands.

If the Braves are not willing to make the first move, fans can make a difference by choosing not to chop and others will hopefully follow. Education is important to addressing the issue. The more people learn about the harmful repercussions of their actions, the closer we move towards chopping the chop once and for all.

YikYik, the anonymous community-based messaging app that was taken off the App Store four years ago, is back and controversial as ever.

This app has become immensely popular on Tech’s campus, as well as many other college campuses across the US, as a way to anonymously write your inner thoughts, opinions and start drama.

The premise of YikYak started as a way to anonymously connect with your community within a five-mile radius. It is similar to Twitter in its posting, commenting and scrolling features, but a major difference is that unlike Twitter where every user has a traceable username and account, no one knows who exactly is making the posts and comments on YikYak.

This has made YikYak a prime breeding ground for drama, bullying, false information and discriminatory posts that are harmful to the Tech community.

Going on YikYak is like playing a big game of “Telephone” to get news about what’s happening on campus.

Facts can easily get misconstrued and spread like wildfire across the feeds of anyone with the app depending on how many upvotes or downvotes the post gets.

While some of the posts are funny or relatable, a lot of the posts are insulting, concerning, defamatory or a combination of all three.

Greek life appears to be the most popular target of posts on Tech’s YikYak, with many of the claims posted being unjustifiable or seeming to come out of nowhere as a way to negatively affect the reputation of a particular fraternity of sorority.

It is disturbing reading the things that are posted on that app and then realizing that they were made by your peers, which has caused some to feel very uncomfortable or even unsafe.

YikYak has become an easy way to target groups of people without getting caught, which not only brings the ethics of the app into question but also the underlying reason for why people feel compelled to say such things when given an anonymous identity.

With that being said, we do not think that the app itself is all to blame.

The creators definitely need to improve their algorithm to weed out harmful posts, but at the end of the day it is the individual messages that are causing problems that need to be addressed.

The act of posting on YikYak feels like screaming into the void as a way to get attention, which definitely needs some further unpacking.

Maybe it helps some users feel less alone or perhaps some people find it relieving or exciting to anonymously post their inner thoughts — whatever the case may be, the activity on this app has something to say about the reality of the internal struggles and lack of support systems that students feel at Tech to be able to be open and talk about certain things.

While many problems arose because of this app, the reason it initially got taken down wasn’t because of the harmful comments made but lack of user engagement.

Even though not having to make an account is great for short-term user engagement, this has also turned into the Achilles heel of the app’s long-term success because people have no lasting ties to the app.

People are bound to get bored, and just like any fad, the app will probably fade away.

But in the meantime, please be mindful of what you post and the potential harms and impact it will have on others.

On the morning of Monday, Oct. 2, Facebook, along with several of its other major social media apps including Instagram, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp, unexpectedly crashed.

Despite only being down for a couple of hours, the after effects of this Internet crash were severe — these apps are used by billions of people across the world every single day and also serve as a vital method of communication, information sharing and commerce that directly affect many people’s livelihoods.

Facebook being erased from the Internet for not even a whole day revealed to us the true dystopian world that we are living by exposing us to the harms and absurdity of what happens when we let one corporation globally own and control such a crucial aspect of our lives.

If the crash had happened for longer than just a couple of hours and extended into days and maybe even weeks, the world may have experienced a science fiction-esque crisis similar to that of a watered down episode of “Black Mirror.”

The amount of global power and influence that Facebook has is uncanny; for some countries like India, Facebook has become almost synonymous with the Internet, and smart phones are often already preinstalled with the Facebook app, making the company ingrained in the country’s communication systems.

Especially with all of its new features like live streaming, virtual reality, messaging and buying and selling on a virtual marketplace, Facebook has taken an all encompassing and inescapable hold of our lives.

Facebook has become a lifeline for people communicating with their friends, family and other loved ones across the world and became even more crucial to our everyday lives over the course of the pandemic.

Social media and communication apps are no longer just fun ways to post photos and send things to your friends; they have become the basis of entire communities that have meaningful impacts on the lives of everyday people.

In addition, many other non-Facebook owned applications, services and websites now use Facebook as a way to sign in, which puts even more power in the hands of the multinational corporation.

On the day of the crash, not only were the Facebook apps themselves inaccessible, but some people with Facebook-backed logins were not even able to access even basic things like their Internet-connected home appliances and business websites.

While the internet gifted us with a more interconnected world, it does not make sense from a logical or privacy and safety point of view to rely on one singular corporation to keep the modern world running.

Luckily, the world has started to open their eyes to how dangerous big media and tech giants have become.

Between ex-employee whistle blowers to documentaries to antitrust lawsuits, companies like Facebook are under scrutiny as more and more people are becoming aware of how their company is unethically profiting off of selling and using their personal data.

As massive multinational corporations like Facebook and Amazon continue to grow more powerful and play a major role in our lives, governments and world leaders need to hold them accountable or else people’s livelihoods and privacy may be at risk.

Studying abroad is thought of to be the quintessential college experience; whether it be spending a summer taking classes at GT Lorraine, doing an LBAT in Spain to get credit for a Spanish minor or getting the opportunity to take your spring semester in New Zealand and Australia through the faculty-led Pacific Program, Tech has a variety of international programs available to enhance your degree path and create memories to last a lifetime.

To put it simply, if you get the chance to study abroad while you are at Tech, you should absolutely do it. For many students who had the privilege of studying abroad at some point in their college career, they have claimed it was the “best summer of their life,” and they made friends while abroad that they’re still close with to this day.

Immersing yourself in the culture and language of another country will widen your world view and maybe even open up career opportunities and the discovery of newfound interests.

In addition, going abroad will make you step out of your comfort zone in ways that you probably never have before, and you will learn new things about yourself along the way that will make you grow that much more as a person by the time you return back to Atlanta.

But unfortunately for many Tech students, mainly third and fourth years, the COVID-19 pandemic unfairly took away their opportunity to study abroad.

Students who had already made their travel plans, plane tickets and all, to spend their summer or fall semester in another country were told no to their unbeknownst only opportunity to study abroad due to high levels of
uncertainty and enforced travel restrictions.

By the time vaccines came along and restrictions were lifted, many students who had once hoped to go abroad felt that the ideal window to have gone on a study abroad program had passed and that an internship or co-op would be way more beneficial and practical for them at this point in their college careers. But unfortunately for many Tech students, mainly third and fourth years, the COVID-19 pandemic unfairly took away the opportunity to study abroad.

Students who had already made their travel plans, plane tickets and all, to spend their summer or fall semester in another country were told no to their unbeknownst only opportunity to study abroad due to high levels of uncertainty and enforced travel restrictions.

By the time vaccines came along and restrictions were lifted, many students who had once hoped to go abroad felt that the ideal window to have gone on a study abroad program had passed and that an internship or co-op would be way more beneficial and practical for them at this point in their college careers.

Looking back, older students who were not able to study abroad wish they had been encouraged more during their freshman year to do it because, COVID-19 or not, they feel like that would have been the best time to do it.

A catch with many study abroad programs, in particular popular ones like the Oxford Program and GT Lorraine, is that the vast majority of the classes offered are gen-eds or lower level classes that are generally taken during your first or second year. If you wait too long to take classes abroad, most likely you will have already taken most if not all of the available classes.

And despite how cool and exciting it may have been if they were able to study abroad during their time at Tech, older students who were not able to go abroad were still able to have a rewarding and memorable college experience thus far.

Many of the students who were not able to go abroad became leaders of their clubs and organizations across campus and got extra close with their friends.

They figured out the ins and outs of Tech’s campus, their favorite hangout and study spots and even came to appreciate the city of Atlanta even more than they had upon first arriving at college.

Most importantly, they did not have to go far to discover themselves.

The last week of September is International Banned Books Week. Started in 1982 as a response to a surge in banned books, this week is dedicated all across the globe to celebrating the freedom to read and learn by spotlighting books throughout the years that have been censored or banned by schools, bookstores and libraries.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, censorship is defined as “the suppression of words, images or ideas that are considered ‘offensive.’”

Censorship happens whenever powerful people succeed in imposing their personal values on others, whether they be moral or political.

This can happen anywhere from the government to schools to even how parents choose to raise their children.

Books have been banned for a variety of reasons, usually relating to racism, violence or sexual situations.

However, many of the books that students study today in high school, such as Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” or John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men,” were at one point banned in schools because teachers, librarians, parents throughout history were personally offended by the content or messages and felt that these books would have greater negative effects if students were exposed to them.

For this year’s theme “Books Unite Us. Censorship Divides Us,” our editorial staff board has read on average four out of the ten chosen books for this week, most of them being from their high school English curriculum. So what changed? Why are these books so popular now?

We think that schools realized the value of these books because they teach that the world is complicated and have subjects that are relevant, real and important to have analytic conversations about.

For example, “To Kill A Mockingbird” explores themes surrounding racism, class and injustice in America, which are all incredibly important to have educational conversations about because of how they have shaped our country and continue to impact how we move through our everyday lives.

Additionally, many of the books that were once considered too “edgy” or controversial in the past are not perceived the same way nowadays.

The level of what’s considered age appropriate or socially acceptable to talk about has vastly changed throughout the years, and the books that push boundaries in topic and theme have shown to be catalysts for that change.

These books have given us an opportunity to change and learn more about the ways different people experience life, and who knows, maybe works that are considered inappropriate or obscene in schools today will be widely taught in schools ten years down the road.

With that being said, not every book is appropriate in all school settings and should be filtered accordingly as students grow and mature. Filtering is different from banning because rather than saying a hard “never,” filtering does not completely omit said information from exposure — it just says “not right now.”

For example, having books that explore sexual or violent themes should be left out of elementary school libraries and school curricula because students are not ready for those conversations yet.

However, books with similar themes would be fine in high schools because the students have matured and should be exposed to real world themes as part of their growth into adulthood.

Literature can act as a safe space for conversations to be held about sensitive topics, especially if there is a teacher to guide them along the way and provide context — it is better to have first exposure to these types of real world issues as part of students’ education and growth rather than later down the road into their twenties and thirties.

Senior pranks and kids stealing stuff from school is not anything new, but how far is too far? Due to a recent trend on TikTok known as “Devious Licks”, also referred to as “Diabolical Licks’’ and “Dastardly Licks,” kids are being encouraged to steal anything from soap dispensers to fire alarms to even full teachers desks from their respective schools to participate in the viral trend.

High school bathrooms have been the worst victims of this trend, with some schools being forced to close their bathrooms entirely due to extreme vandalism.

Dealing with pandemic-related issues in the classroom is already a lot on teachers’ plates, but now schools are trying to figure out ways to address and ultimately stop this trend from getting out of hand, some being more extreme than others — various high schools across the nation are locking the bathrooms during class time, not allowing backpacks inside restrooms or requiring an adult escort to walk them to the bathroom.

On a more serious level, thirteen students are already facing criminal charges for their involvement in the TikTok trend.

But is arresting a student really worth it over a TikTok trend that will most likely go away in a week or two? A lot of kids who are participating in this trend probably are not aware of the consequences and financial repercussions of their actions and are just doing it in an attempt to temporarily go viral or simply because they are bored and think the videos are funny.

They are not thinking of the custodial staff who has to clean up after them or how the money that has to go towards replacing the stolen items could have gone somewhere more useful. Some schools may not even have the funds to replace the stolen items in the first place, which could potentially put pressure on the parents of the students to pay up.

Rather than immediately resorting to police discipline, schools could make efforts towards reforming and educating their students to help them understand why following viral trends like “Devious Licks” are bad.

Additionally, if it were not for the attention that this trend is getting on social media and national news sources, including the New York Times, NPR, the Washington Post and other big-name reputable news outlets, it would not even cross a lot of students’ minds to participate in vandalism and theft from their schools. The mass attention from the adult world is merely fueling the fire of the trend that probably would not have gotten as popular as it did without it.

Schools have been shown to be quick to jump to extremes when adults are made aware of trends in their student bodies. Back in many of our elementary school days when Silly Bandz were all the rave, schools often banned them completely for being “distractions in the classroom” despite them being just funny-shaped rubber bracelets.

But the thing about trends is that they are called “trends” for a reason in that they do not last forever — while this is easier said than done, the best thing schools can do is address students directly or ride out the “Devious Licks” trend because it will just fade away like most fads do.

COVID-19 adds a new risk to Music Midtown crowds

It’s 85 degrees out and you are in the middle of a screaming crowd that smells like someone’s blue raspberry vape cloud. You’re hot and sweaty, your legs tired after standing for two hours waiting for the next band to come on stage.

You cannot even turn around without bumping into the people next to you and god knows how long the line is for the unkempt porta potties — welcome to Music Midtown, Atlanta’s most popular music festival that’s happening in Piedmont Park this upcoming weekend.

Music festivals are gross and germ-infested in the best of times, but being in the midst of a pandemic brings a whole other issue to the table regarding public health and safety.

In 2019, Music Midtown drew a crowd of almost 50,000 people, and this year it can be expected to draw a crowd close in size as people are getting excited to go out again and see live music after a year of shutdown. As the music festival scene across the country is heating back up again, whether or not it is a good idea or the right time to have a major music festival in Atlanta comes into question.

This year, Music Midtown is requiring all attendees to have a full COVID-19 vaccination or proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of attending the festival.

In addition, Music Midtown is partnering with the City of Atlanta for an on-site vaccine drive that will run on Sunday. To incentivize people to come get vaccinated, the festival is giving away free tickets to anyone who gets their vaccine at one of the two locations within the park. While it’s great that the festival is attempting to air on the side of caution with regards to the pandemic, there are definitely some loopholes in their plan.

Number one, even if someone who is unvaccinated tests negative three days before attending the festival, that does not guarantee that they will not catch the virus or choose to quarantine within that time frame.

Secondly, having an incentive-based vaccination site at the festival is attracting non-vaccinated people to the festival who, despite their negative test requirement to attend, could still be carriers and expose more people who are already at the festival.

According to the CDC, vaccines are not even fully effective until around two weeks after getting vaccinated, and you need to have two doses for optimal immunity, so the logic behind allowing newly vaccinated people to go to the festival immediately after getting inoculated doesn’t make a lot of sense from a safety perspective.

Similar to the “freshman plague” as some may call it, which is the phenomenon observed at Tech at the start of the semester when everyone comes back to campus and a significant amount of students get sick all at once, music festivals have been notorious for being super spreaders, even in the pre-pandemic days.

Sometimes it feels like we forget that COVID-19 is not the only disease out there, so even if you have your vaccine, the chances of getting sick with something are still relatively high if you spend a whole weekend in a crowded, maskless area.

Another issue to consider is the primary attendee of Music Midtown; high school and college students flock to the festival every year to see their favorite artists and bands. It is all fun and games until they go home or back to their campus or high school and potentially spread COVID-19 to those who did not even attend the festival.

However despite all of the obvious risks, many people are still going because why not — Music Midtown is so much fun and gives students something exciting to look forward to. The music festival is super close to campus, and you get to see so many big-name artists all in one weekend for a decent price. If it is happening, it is hard to say no, and that is the risk Music Midtown is taking by putting it on in the first place. If there is a big spike in cases, don’t blame the attendees, blame the organizers.