With the recent announcement of incoming President Ángel Cabrera, the Technique sees a valuable opportunity to use this watershed moment to speak to Dr. Cabrera and the administration collectively. Dr. Cabrera has had an impactful several years at George Mason University, with a proven record of increasing enrollment and graduation rate by multiple percentage points, and played a role in improving other metrics of student academic outcomes. George Mason’s SGA President has also fully endorsed Dr. Cabrera, citing his competency and commitment to driving change. 

In the same vein of being mission-focused and tangible, the student body of Georgia Tech would like to see the same approach applied to decisions regarding current pressing issues on campus, including improving visibility of administration activities, confronting issues head-on regarding the LGBTQ+ community, as well as data and privacy breach issues that have recently plagued the university. We hope Dr. Cabrera’s previous positive track record in addressing some of the transparency concerns held by the students and faculty of GMU translates to Tech, despite some concerns among students that the Presidential selection process itself lacked transparency. We remain cautiously eager to see his approach in addressing Georgia Tech’s own issues with transparency and ethics scandals and mending broken trust. 

There is also an ongoing mental health crisis on campus that requires urgent and prompt attention. It is our hope that, as a person who has endured the rigors of Georgia Tech for two degrees and as a father of a recent Tech graduate, Dr. Cabrera might use his strong ties to the university to inform his decision-making and consideration of the well-being of students. We place our trust in Dr. Cabrera to continue to empower victims of sexual assault and misconduct to have their voices heard, acknowledged, and acted upon with momentum, as he has demonstrated by increasing staff numbers in GMU’s Title IX office. 

At the same time, we feel it is important to note that students are not simply statistics to improve upon. While we are always excited about innovative industry partnerships, ground-breaking research, and contracted projects, these achievements by the university all seem like empty headlines without contextualizing them in terms of benefits to students. Past Presidents have largely prioritized the institution over students – but what is the job of the President, if not to serve the student body, first and foremost? As the voice of the student body, we encourage students themselves to effectively “set the direction” for the next generation of Tech students. It is equally our responsibility as students to show Dr. Cabrera and the ensuing administration what change needs to be enacted, and what is truly important to students and faculty. Only then can we forge a path forward that is productive and meaningful to all parties involved.

After becoming the subject of several local news stories, Tech’s administration decided to allow eight students from the Excel program to walk at this year’s commencement ceremony. While they were also doubtlessly influenced by internal forces — 8,500 people signed a petition in favor of the decision — addressing issues only in the face of external pressure has become something of a trend for Tech’s administration.

The Institute’s Path Forward initiative exemplifies this PR-focused approach to campus problems. An extremely outward-facing plan to curb a harmful campus culture, the initiative has so far given students little more than press releases and assurance that ‘Action Teams’ are hard at work.  The website claims that it “unites students, staff and faculty voices,” but only two students are currently involved in the initiative. No meeting minutes are kept, so “progress” can’t be reasonably tracked. A Path Forward’s true purpose is painfully clear: making it appear that Tech cares.

When it became apparent that senior Tech executive Steve Swant had a flagrant conflict of interest — Swant was on the board of a software company that conveniently received several lucrative contracts with the Institute — Peterson and the administration barred him from accepting payment from the company, and an internal investigation cleared Swant of any wrongdoing. Only when the situation caught the attention of Georgia’s Board of Regents did Peterson find it necessary to terminate Swant’s employment and address the egregious ethics violations.

Given Tech’s repeated bungling of cut-and-dry common sense issues, it has become increasingly clear to the student body that the administration cares about its image above all else — student lives and basic ethics included. Without external pressure, nothing changes.

Unfortunately, students have grown apathetic towards the administration’s lack of urgency. The few who take it upon themselves to advocate for institutional change only have five years to do so before a new crop of students, one with no opinion about the administration yet, takes their place.

With a search for a new president underway and several personnel changes being made throughout the Institute, Tech finally has a chance to leave the spectre of botched ethical decisions and surface-level mental health solutions behind. The next generation of Yellow Jackets deserves better than that.

Tech’s Excel Program, per its website, “is a four year college program for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities leading to two separate Certificates.” The program began in 2015 with a group of eight students, growing each year towards an eventual goal of 48. In May, seven of those eight students will be finishing the program and receiving their certificates.

Being in a certificate program, these students weren’t technically entitled to recognition at commencement. SGA passed a resolution requesting that an exception be made for Excel students, but President Peterson and Provost Bras were wary of using commencement to recognize programs other than full-fledged Tech undergraduate and graduate degrees.

An online petition, sitting at 7,300 signatures at the time of writing, has brought this issue to the spotlight. In it, the president of Excel’s Student Advisory Board lays out the issue and requests student support, taking somewhat of a combative stance against the administration — and strangely Dean of Students John Stein, who does not have a say in the matter.

As more details came to light the aggressive wording was removed; the administration wasn’t being intentionally callous, they were simply underprepared. It’s extremely possible that, before SGA’s resolution this spring, they hadn’t even considered that the first cohort of Excel students would finish in May.

Still, at the end of the day this is a discretionary decision for President Peterson and the Provost to make. The Excel program strives to immerse its students in the college experience. They take classes for four years, they are involved in campus groups, they live in student housing and they are just as much a presence on Tech’s campus as the rest of us.

Though a few Excel students don’t feel strongly one way or the other, some feel that recognition at commencement would be an important conclusion to their four-year campaign at Tech. 

Commencement should be about recognizing and celebrating academic achievement at Tech. If it was based strictly on the completion of a traditional degree program, summer graduates wouldn’t qualify to walk in May. While it’s true that allowing Excel students to walk could theoretically lead to other certificate programs requesting the same recognition, the uniqueness of the Excel program and its integration into Tech’s culture make it worthy of an exception.

This year’s election cycle has given rising campus leaders a chance to shine the spotlight on problems that SGA can focus on in the coming year. With the departure of President Peterson and a heightened awareness of campus issues like dining and mental health, it is important that the student body is represented by leaders that will take advantage of the opportunities that this dynamic time brings.

While Carson Silbert and Francis Yang would undoubtedly be effective SGA leaders, Pooja Juvekar and Haigh Angell’s actionable platform and diverse team gave them the edge when the Technique staff decided who to endorse this year. Dead-end promises and nebulous verbs like “promote” and “empower” are inevitable in any platform — except that of Jimmy Forsmo and Shishir Bandi — but Pooja and Haigh paint a clear picture of their goals for SGA to accomplish in the coming year and the campus community that they want to build.

The two platforms overlap significantly in several areas, but they each posit unique ideas that the eventual winners should implement. Carson and Francis’ “Hello my name is…” initiative, while questionable in its efficacy, brings a new dynamic to campus mental health conversation. Expanding the counseling center has become the go-to solution championed by many campus groups, but complacency with that singular answer ignores the complexity of the issue. The “Hello my name is…” idea shows that improving campus culture around mental health shouldn’t end at a more robust counseling center.

The candidates on both tickets have impressive histories in SGA, but two accomplishments stood out to us. First, Pooja’s work in improving the internal communication of SGA has been invaluable in ensuring its smooth operation. Second, Haigh’s successful efforts to introduce mini-mesters into Tech’s curriculum will put him in a unique position to evaluate their debut in the fall. While the nature of SGA makes it difficult to attribute accomplishments to individual members, Pooja and Haigh’s initiative in these matters reflects well on their ability to bring ideas into fruition.

We would be remiss if we did not mention the ticket of Jimmy and Shishir, whose platform consists of a single point: veto everything until the counseling center has a 500:1 student-to-counselor ratio.          

Between their meme-based campaign and their lack of SGA experience it is clear that they weren’t entirely viable candidates, but their goal of making a statement was nonetheless achieved. It is simply impractical to sabotage every aspect of SGA until a single, complex target is met.

Cabinet appointments are an important factor in our decision, and the combination of experience and diversity in Pooja and Haigh’s team leads us to believe that they would put together an effective group if they were to be elected. This, in addition to their experience, tangible platform points and representation of a larger swath of the student body — not just those in For The Kids or Freshman Leadership Organizations ­— solidified our decision to endorse their ticket this year.

Editor’s Note: The edited version of this article previously stated that “representatives and the Speaker did not have enough knowledge of their own procedures to know that the President and Vice President were allowed to speak.” This is incorrect and the consensus has been amended in this updated version.

A recent meeting of SGA’s Undergraduate House of Representatives (UHR) was brought to a head when Speaker of the House Darryl Terry, II ordered the removal of the Undergraduate SGA President and Vice President from the room. This event was precipitated by a growing schism between the executive branch of SGA and the Speaker, who is technically a member of the executive cabinet.

The removal came as Evan Gillon and Ayodeji Aladesanmi, SGA President and Vice President, respectively, sought to comment on a matter being discussed during UHR. Although the executive duo traditionally do not speak during UHR, this occasion called for them to make their voices heard. Although the executive duo are traditionally permitted to speak before the House, Terry was within his rights to deny them time on the floor. The fact that several representatives attempted to yield their time to Gillon and Aladesanmi, however, makes the situation a bit more peculiar.

In an actual legislative body, comprised entirely of members with a strong knowledge of the laws, this would be understandable. In a student government meeting, where the President and Vice President have a much more thorough understanding of the bylaws than many of the students making up the House, denying them the right to speak borders on irresponsible.

Furthermore, this sort of drama has no place in a gathering of student leaders and undergraduate representatives. If the rift between the Speaker and the executive branch interferes with the internal operation of SGA, it is working to the detriment of the student body. Students come to UHR to either advocate for their organization or carry out their duties as a representative. At the end of the day, these are all Tech students that have made a commitment to campus and their respective organizations. Playing political games simply wastes everyone’s time.

Effective internal communication is crucial for the success of SGA. If individual parties decide to act of their own accord and at the expense of their peers, their actions are tantamount to shirking their obligation to the student body.

A separation between the Speaker and the executive branch is not inherently bad. The obstinate manner in which Terry is approaching the matter, however, directly interferes with the smooth operation of UHR. If Terry had not eschewed the traditional practice of sitting in on executive cabinet meetings, Gillon and Aladesanmi may not have even felt the need to speak on the House floor. A Speaker serves a conduit of information from the executive branch to UHR. If he refuses to act in this capacity, he should at least let them speak.

As the tenure of SGA leaders Evan Gillon and Ayodeji Aladesanmi comes to a close, students are beginning to get a clearer picture of what the duo’s impact on campus will look like moving forward. We took a retroactive look at their platform to see how it lines up with SGA’s recent achievements.

The platform is divided into discrete ‘commitments’ that address issues regarding several different aspects of Tech’s campus: Academics, Campus, Mental Wellness, Empowering Students, Inclusivity and Sustainability. As with every SGA platform, the duo’s efficacy in accomplishing these goals varied as widely as their scope. 

Several of the document’s points are still major campus pain points, with seemingly little to no progress being made. They promised an effort to create discipline-specific career fairs — a perennial wish for Ivan Allen students — and yet the meager progress made in this arena wasn’t even pushed by SGA. Their promise to support the campus art community rang hollow when they did nothing to advocate for Under the Couch in their fight for space until pushed to do so. And while they did distribute a list of “best practices” for professors, it amounted to nothing more than a verbose list of common sense guidelines.

These are just the most flagrant issues; several of the platform’s points seem to have fallen by the wayside as the year has gone on.

However, these shouldn’t overshadow the positive work that Evan and Ayo have done. Historically, one of SGA’s biggest issues has been a lack of transparency. SGA typically only enters the student consciousness during the two weeks that candidates’ names are plastered all over Greek housing. The last year has seen a dramatic increase in communication via newsletter, social media and meetings with campus leaders.

Additionally, despite their inaction with Under the Couch, they’ve made great strides in establishing an Arts Council to make decisions regarding arts organizations on Tech’s campus.

Several of their efforts, such as high-level policy suggestions, mini-mesters and work on Tech’s upcoming GT CARE Center, are playing out behind the scenes and won’t be seen until well after the two have crossed the graduation stage. 

Though they were able to contribute to these long-term projects, a single academic year is too short to make a significant impact on Tech’s campus. This is compounded by the fact that, compared to the administration on Georgia’s Board of Regents, SGA’s power is but a drop in the bucket. 

Why, then, do candidates continue to promise things that are clearly out of their purview? Several of the platform’s bullet points read more like a wish list than a series of actionable items. A perfectly transparent SGA would make known what it can and cannot do.

The platform, while more realistic than previous years, is vague. Because they ran unopposed they had the opportunity to present tangible plans for their inevitable victory instead of appealing to the masses. Instead, they carried this lack of clarity into their term, leaving us wondering what had been done.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz drew the ire of many this week as he mulled the possibility of a presidential run. Last election brought a wave of anti-establishment sentiment as political newcomer Donald Trump took on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who many saw as an untrustworthy career politician.

Ever since Trump’s victory, we’ve seen several nonpoliticians — Oprah and Mark Zuckerberg being two egregious examples — discuss potential presidential runs. But does success in business translate well, if at all, to success in the country’s highest political office?

A key flaw in anti-establishment thinking is its extreme simplification of the political process. Getting things done in our government is much more convoluted than simply signing pieces of paper; there are hundreds of factors, both foreign and domestic, that go into each and every decision made by our president, and unless you’ve been around the block you probably have little idea how to realistically implement the policies that you campaigned on.

This is doubly true when it comes to the matter of foreign affairs. No matter how many cups of coffee you’ve sold, you can’t expect to put on the president’s shoes and instantly tapdance across the geopolitical stage. Political experience goes a long way in ensuring both confidence and clout in navigating foreign policy.

It would be dangerous to disqualify nonpoliticans outright; however, if someone with a good leadership record is willing to surround him or herself with experienced people and step up to the plate in a way that Trump has not, we should give them the chance they deserve. But ultimately it is up to us, the voters, to make an informed decision as to what qualifies a candidate.

For many, a Georgia Tech degree all but guarantees a desirable job after graduation.  Students of certain majors walk the stage to find a horde of eager employers waiting on the other side, while those from smaller, less visible majors are often met with nothing. 

Companies that attend Tech’s “All Majors” career fair are not necessarily on the hunt for students from all majors. It’s no secret that our programs like Mechanical Engineering or Industrial Engineering are top notch; Recruiters, then, use the Institute as a funnel for a steady supply of new hires in those areas. 

If the Institute has not done a good job of advertising its LMC program, for example, these companies will not come to an “All Majors” career fair looking for LMC students. This is a problem that a once-fledgling Computer Science program had to deal with, and their solution could easily be replicated in other departments. Instead of sending Computer Science majors into a general career fair, the College of Computing started to put on its own. Now, companies spend four days each semester specifically courting new hires in the computing field.

Although the Scheller College of Business has not gone that far, they still have a dedicated Office of Career Serives to help with job placement. Many majors in the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts, as an example, do not have this infrastructure and will often leave Tech without plans for a career.

Tech needs to do a better job of advertising these programs to employers, many of whom have no idea what Computational Media or History, Technology and Society mean. Until there is a healthy pool of employers seeking non-engineers from Tech, students in other disciplines will continue to find themselves at a disadvantage.

It is true that there is a higher demand for graduates in STEM fields than in other disciplines, and this is especially true at an engineering school like Tech. This does not mean that Tech should leave the rest of their students out to dry, however. 

This problem extends to Tech’s graduate student population as well; As enrollment in our non-STEM graduate prorams increases, their representation in career-building events like Tech’s Career, Research and Innovation Development Conference should increase to match it. Otherwise, poor job placement rates could drive students away from these programs, or even Tech as a whole.

Students got their first look at the newly renovated Crosland Tower at the beginning of the semester, and while the face lift certainly improved the space’s aesthetics, its practicality was met with a lukewarm response. 

The seven-story study space dramatically increased the amount of student seating, but this was at the expense of individual, cubicle-style spaces. Large multi-seat tables fill the tower, giving the library a more collaborative feel. This doesn’t stop students from working individually at a shared table, so this complaint is minor.

Most of these tables share an unfortunate trait: backless chairs. Between the stools and picnic-style benches, it seems that the seating was not designed with ergonomics in mind. Given the inevitability of hours-long study sessions, this may be an example of Tech emphasizing form over function.

In fact, this emphasis seems to permeate every aspect of the new library. The focus on natural lighting is great, but it leads to a dark study space at night. The open concept layout of several floors gives the space a modern feel, but it leaves a lot of seating  out of range of wall outlets. The wall of empty cubbies on the ground floor would look great if they were full of books, but the space could have been better used as more study space or seating.

This could easily change, especially considering the fact that the library is still a work in progress. But given our status as a leader in innovation, it would have been nice to see a bit more functional innovating with the renovation.

These gripes do not change the fact that, in all, the new tower is a fantastic upgrade. The energy usage was greatly reduced, and the variety of breakout rooms and collaboration spaces will bring a lot of flexibility and take some pressure off of the Clough rooms. The sheer beauty of the space also cannot be overstated, and the focus on aesthetics helps create a good atmosphere for working. The design was tailored to directly address student issues with the old tower, and in that sense it succeeded.

Aside from the functional issues of chairs and outlets, most student complaints will subside once they get used to the building. It is true that there are very few books, but there is no doubt that this reflects a low checkout rate. At the end of the day, Crosland Tower stands out as one of the most impressive spaces on campus, and if Tech refines their approach on future projects we can have both beauty and function.

President G. P. “Bud” Peterson has announced his intention to step down, leaving the Tech community with a pressing question: who will take his place?

Peterson’s tenure saw a healthy rise in Tech’s reputation, both in industry and in academia. Our rankings are consistently impressive and admissions are as competitive as ever. With an increased focus on Tech’s sometimes-toxic campus culture, however, new leadership could provide new opportunities to address issues like mental health that have proven to be stumbling blocks for Peterson.

The ideal candidate would seize upon Tech’s recent ethics concerns to highlight appropriate reporting practices and emphasize transparency and accountability, ensuring that Tech’s administration maintains the student trust that it is currently in the process of repairing.

The new president should also incorporate student affairs into their long and short term goals for the Institute, maintaining Peterson’s legacy of renown while also turning an eye inward and dialing in on issues that students feel have been swept under the rug.

Though the president reports to Georgia’s Board of Regents, there are times where they will need to push back on ideas that could be detrimental to Tech. The student body deserves a president that it can trust to fight on its behalf.

With new leadership comes a chance to break Tech’s cultural inertia and force a reassessment of values. Though it may seem counterintuitive, hiring someone from outside of Tech would likely bring more trust to the position than promoting from within. The administration should take all of these factors into account when filling the position as the growing dissatisfaction with life at Tech needs to be mitigated in order to allow the Institute to live up to the reputation Peterson has helped build.