In the political fervor of the days leading up to Nov. 6, the term “civic duty” took its place in the transient spotlight of the public consciousness. The phrase is universally understood as a reference to voting; most of America’s civic engagement occurs in an election booth once every few years. While self-righteous flaunting of stickers and Facebook profile frames seems to represent a population heavily involved in the political process, the current excitement around government will fade before new representatives even take their seats.

The gears of our political process are always turning, however. Many Americans act as though casting a vote is the most they can do to affect the course of their community and the nation as a whole. In a healthy democracy, however, the general public takes on role that is arguably more important than the vote they cast in November.

First, they can take action on the issues that drove them to cast a ballot in the first place. Voters ideally choose a candidate based on a variety of issues, and those issues will persist despite the election. If someone wants to see change, there are almost certainly organizations dedicated to serving their interests that are in dire need of monetary donations and volunteers.

There is definitely a big difference between casting a vote and spending time or money on activism. Fortunately, there is an even larger middle ground that is accessible to everyone.

Instead of simply voting, civic duty should refer to informed voting. A politically engaged populace follows the actions of their representatives and ensures that they live up to their title. Contacting representatives leads to a response at the least and a tangible change at most. Skeptics may argue that reps are more beholden to special interests than their constituents, but the razor-thin margins of the most recent elections have emphasized the fact that every vote counts. If enough people express a desire for action, change can happen at any time. Voices are heard far beyond election day if people are passionate enough to speak up.

Even though the political landscape may not directly affect everyone, it still affects their classmates, colleagues and neighbors. They may not give out stickers for reading up on the latest bill to go through Congress, but maintaining a working knowledge of politics is the best way for an individual to support a healthy democracy. To be apathetic after election day is to shirk your civic duty.

“Sustainable” has become something of a buzzword in recent years. Issues of sustainability have surged into the public consciousness, leading companies to shift their focus towards the more environmentally friendly consumer.

However, as shoppers begin flocking to responsibly sourced and produced clothes made of recycled fabrics, they will continue feeding one of the most heinous of environmental offenders: electronic waste.

This new form of pollution, known commonly as “e-waste”, is supported by a tangled web of different causes. Cultural and monetary factors make up the bulk of the issue; our society is obsessed with innovation and a fetishism of the “next best thing”, while companies have a financial interest in pushing newer, better products as frequently as possible.

If both consumers and producers lack incentive to change then the onus falls one step back, to the people researching and creating the technology that powers these devices.

Several technologies that we now see as commonplace began as ideas in research labs like the ones here at Tech. If sustainable practices become integrated into the very foundation of our tech research, that sustainability will be carried through the pipeline all the way to the consumer — and, more importantly, to the landfill or recycling plant.

The problem of e-waste will persist, but as a major research institute, we have the opportunity to mitigate its severity and environmental impact. Instead of mandatory ethics courses that many students consider an afterthought, ethics and sustainability should be consciously integrated into our entire body of work. By ensuring that these technologies are sustainable at the point of conception we can promote cleaner practices across the board and maintain our position at the forefront of innovation.

It is impossible to discuss the 2017-2018 academic year at Georgia Tech without mentioning the death of Scout Schultz at the hands of GTPD. The tragedy sent our community into a frenzy. Numerous campus organizations had suddenly lost an influential member and friend; students were drawn into debates about GTPD’s culpability and, above all, everyone involved faced a difficult question: How do we ensure that this never happens again?

A year ago, the Progressive Student Alliance, now a part of the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA), quickly released a list of demands for Tech’s administration, aimed at changing campus culture with regards to campus safety, mental health and the LGBTQIA+ community. President Peterson and the higher-ups on campus eventually promised action, laying out the steps they would take to address the concerns of the student body. Now, one year after the shooting, little has been accomplished.

In a recent statement, YDSA noted a sizable disconnect between Peterson’s response and the steps he  and the administration have taken in the past year. Of particular note were four proposed “action teams” tasked with determining issues in such areas as campus safety, mental health and LGBTQIA+ accommodations. The campus safety action team, according to Peterson’s “A Path Forward – Together” campaign, was set to be created after a Georgia Bureau of Investigation inquiry into the shooting. Months after the investigation’s conclusion, the team still has not convened and no new references have appeared. Furthermore, the recommendations of the action teams that still exist have been either skewed or omitted altogether.

According to YDSA, despite recommendations from the action teams as well as a promise from administration, there are no plans to include a multi-stall gender-inclusive restroom in the new student center. There are currently no plans to include these in any future buildings or renovation, begging the question of whether the action teams serve any real purpose at all. Furthermore, in his speech at the opening of the LGBTQIA+ center in 2014, President Peterson promised that all new building would include gender-neutral restrooms.

From the outside, however, it appears that progress is being made. The new LGBTQIA+ resource center just opened its doors, and virtually every campus initiative includes a reference to mental health. These observations crumble under closer scrutiny. While it is true that they have a new space, it would appear that the administration had little hand in the decision; the center was funded by SAA’s Gift to Tech, an allocation voted on by the student body. And, per the YDSA statement, Tech has yet to hire a single additional practicing counselor for its mental health initiatives.

The YDSA statement cites a lack of transparency as the main issue hindering progress. The group suggested allowing Tech’s student government to vote on and dictate policies regarding Peterson’s “Path Forward” campaign, though this may not have the desired effect.

First, this assumes that SGA is representative of Tech’s entire student body. Low voting numbers and trouble filling SGA positions — including president and vice president, as only a single ticket ran last year — should be evidence enough that SGA does not accurately represent the student body. Ignoring this, crafting institute policy involves juggling multiple different factors, several of which SGA could have no feasible hand in.

As a result, it appears that continued pressure on Peterson will be the most effective route moving forward. The administration has already made clear their willingness to drag their feet in terms of making change. If more students were to get involved, however, the wheels of change may start to spin faster.

It is safe to say that most Tech students have a very narrow frame of reference for these issues. Justified or not, their experience with YDSA’s efforts is sullied by flaming police cars and chants of “F*ck the Police.” With no way to sympathize  — or even identify — with the implications that Scout’s death has had on a subset of the Tech community, they are susceptible to view YDSA and its associated groups as nothing more than that.

What they do not see, however, are events like the vigil held on a recent Tuesday night. Police lights painted the scene in hues of blue while officers in riot gear lined the sides of streets and tops of buildings. From the outside it appeared that something was wrong; from the inside the participants might have felt like they were a step away from arrest. In reality, what took place was a gathering of students honoring their friend and drawing attention to the Institute’s lack of action.

GTPD is understandably wary of demonstrations after last year’s vigil ended with a torched patrol car. To lose that stigma, YDSA needs people to understand the true meaning behind their anger and continue to carry themselves in a way that is beyond reproach. Any indication of violence or attack on GTPD, verbal or otherwise, is a step backwards in the goal of unifying campus behind YDSA’s cause. Without widespread student support, YDSA will have little means of spurring Peterson and the administration into action.

Fortunately for them, Peterson’s handling of the incident gives the group a lot to work with. Their recent statement outlines several broken promises and highlights a damning lack of urgency in fixing the community’s pressing issues. The lack of transparency is something that concerns the student body as a whole, so reaching out to prominent student leaders would be a productive move. While SGA should not be allowed to craft policy, getting their support would go a long way in catching Peterson’s attention.

Another important step will be ensuring that students know that last year’s violence was not condoned by YDSA. While the situation is certainly complicated, any anti-GTPD sentiment will only hinder YDSA’s progress. Our police department is one of the most beloved campus entities; vilifying the entire department does nothing but drive a wedge between YDSA and the indifferent students that they need on their side in order to make change.

Tech certainly needs to take a step forward, but it seems that the administration will not be the ones facilitate that. Only by uniting the student body behind their cause can the students affected by last year’s tragedy precipitate the change that they have been fighting tooth and nail to achieve.

According to an announcement from Musician’s Network, plans for Tech’s new Student Center do not include a new iteration of Under the Couch (UTC). This new development compounds an ongoing battle between the Musician’s Network and an administration eager to take control of UTC away from them. By eliminating the space completely, Tech would strike a major blow against the development of an art culture on campus and take a step back on their ‘commitment’ to mental health.

The music facilities in West Village have slowly morphed from dedicated practice rooms to rentable all-purpose spaces; allowing students to freely utilize a campus resource is not profitable. The Couch Building boasts a whopping three outdated practice spaces, barely worth the money they cost to rent. Outside of lugging a piano into their dorms and serenading everyone on their floor, students are left with very few options.

The Musician’s Network has had a large impact on campus, both on the members themselves and the scores of people that utilize UTC, enjoy events put on by the group and benefit from their many resources. These resources, ranging from  all-important practices spaces and recording equipment to lessons and networking, are all invaluable to musicians on a college campus. If Tech is willing to axe these, what does that say about their attitudes towards the arts as a whole?

Tech has a reputation as an “all work no play” institution, and simply bringing puppies to campus during exam week will not change that. As long as Tech continues pussyfooting around the mental health crisis on campus and provides “solutions” that solve things in name only, that reputation will not go away. Puppies once a semester do not change campus culture, but taking steps to support the arts on campus could be an effective way to start.

Students moving off campus for the first time often find themselves inundated with new responsibilities. Rent no longer includes use of utilities. Comcast and AT&T take the place of the ubiquitous GTWifi and landlords no longer wear Georgia Tech apparel and smiling faces. It is easy to get overwhelmed.

Several national corporations have swooped in to play hero in this situation, boasting that their cookie-cutter apartment complexes can cater specifically to student needs. Their advertisements are riddled with beautiful young people enjoying lavish amenities, drinks in their hands and smiles on their faces. This creates a borderline-predatory situation: Who needs to read a lease when you already know that there is a ping-pong table?

Students — many of whom are poorly versed in the ways of renting and leases — are easy targets for companies looking to profit off of naivety. Very few take the time to actually read through a lease agreement, and fewer still are able to fully digest its contents. Students affected by delayed move-ins for off-campus student apartments found that they have little recourse due to the terms of their lease agreements.

While scummy business practices are not anything to applaud, the blame for this situation can be cast both ways. Students — through their school or otherwise — need to find ways to educate themselves on the ins-and-outs of securing their own place to live. 

With that comes increased confidence in setting up utilities, a sharper eye for shady business tactics and, most importantly, lease literacy. With a student’s signature, these companies forfeit all accountability for their actions. If students take the time to learn about their lease, they will get a better understanding of their rights and assure that they are not being taken advantage of.

On August 27, the North American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) ruled that all of its member fraternities — a list that includes a majority of chapters on Tech’s campus — will no longer be allowed to have alcohol containing higher than 15 percent alcohol by volume on their premises except when served by a third-party vendor. This means that, outside of registered parties, most of Tech’s fraternities are no longer allowed to have liquor anywhere on their property under the new NIC rules.

The decision stems from several recent deaths relating to hazing and alcohol in Greek organizations. On paper, the rule seems effective; underage students flock to fraternity parties as a source of free and accessible alcohol and younger drinkers are often more prone to overimbibe. It would follow that limiting high-percentage alcohol would decrease the number of incidents caused by overconsumption.

Despite all of its good intentions, the rule seems set to flounder once it is implemented next September. Enforcement will be a logistical nightmare. Unless an entity like Tech’s Interfraternity Council decides to raid every sock drawer in every fraternity house, a $5 flask is enough to render the entire ban useless. Removing liquor from fraternity houses does not remove liquor. Removing liquor from fraternity houses incentivizes students to sacrifice their safety to travel off campus to get their fill of rum and coke.

If incidents do happen on fraternity grounds, the rule may give brothers reason to hesitate before seeking medical attention. Fearing retribution for breaking the rule, fraternities will be put in a difficult situation.

Lack of any reasonable enforcement solution makes this rule little more than recognition of a nationwide collegiate alcohol problem by the NIC.

Tech’s incoming freshman class this year is larger than last fall’s by approximately 130 students. This may sound like an inconsequential increase when we are dealing with a population of over 20,000, but when viewed in the context of long-term trends, several potential issues arise from consistent growth.

Tech’s undergraduate population for the 2009–2010 academic year sat somewhere around 18,000. Since then, that number has grown significantly to over 21,000. Growth certainly has benefits for a university, but problems can also arise if proper measures are not taken to prepare the school for a larger influx of students.

With inadequate room to house a larger freshman class, Peer Leaders (PL) are being forced to share rooms, taking away a perk of the position. Registration is a Hunger Games of hand speed, rewarding quick clickers with ideal schedules and leaving scraps for the rest. Students in larger majors, like CS, are watching class seats become increasingly scarce and sometimes even have to relegate required classes — and, by extension, graduation — to future semesters due to disproportionate numbers of students compared to faculty.

While these issues are mostly faced by freshmen and PLs, every student is experiencing the negative effects of overenrollment. Tech’s population has grown in the past ten years; Tech’s facilities have not. Spaces are finding themselves overrun by students at an increasingly drastic ­— and annoying — rate.

Anyone in the student center between the hours of 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. has seen this issue firsthand. Lines have become so long that it is often unclear whether students are waiting for a chicken sandwich or an eye exam.  A student center expansion sits closely on the horizon, but the consistent growth today cannot be solved by a decade-long construction project.

This is not to say that Tech itself is at fault. Application numbers have skyrocketed — a result of our adoption of the Common App as well as our growing reputation — and the admissions office has no way of realistically knowing how many students will accept a spot at the Institute. Growth also strengthens the financial and intellectual resources of a university; more students mean more money for facilities and more minds to use them for Tech’s cutting-edge work.

It just becomes a matter of Tech itself keeping up with this growth and finding ways to facilitate a larger student body.

Between the student center expansion, a renovated library and a new GTPD building, Tech seems to be headed in the right direction. One has to ask, however: are we letting in too many students too early? Growth trends are bringing in students much faster than facility improvements. Buses and trolleys are becoming increasingly less effective. On-campus dining has become an hour-long affair. Common areas like Skiles Walkway appear more and more like a parade ground every year. Registration has become less about creating a schedule and more about playing an expensive game of musical chairs. Growth is great, but controlled growth is better.

Every morning, people all over Atlanta walk outside to find electric scooters littering the urban landscape. Once night falls, the scooters, called Birds for the company that distributes them, vanish just as quickly as they appeared. These Birds are part of a new transportation concept that allows users to ‘check out’  a scooter they find out in the world and pay by the minute until they reach their destination. Once there, they simply abandon the scooter and continue on their way. Certified users are paid to collect the Birds at night to charge them, placing them in popular areas the next morning.

This seems like a great idea: fewer cars on the road, more enjoyable commutes and a reasonable solution to the too-far-to-walk-but-too-short-to-drive dilemma. But from what we have seen over the past month, and what we will see for the foreseeable future, is that these Birds may not have been ready to leave the nest.

The scooters are meant to be ridden in bicycle lanes, and for good reason. Cyclists and Bird users take up a similar amounts of space and move at comparable speeds. If a route lacks bike lanes, users are left with a Sophie’s Choice of sorts: disrupt pedestrian traffic on sidewalks or try their luck on the open road. Both of these options are far less than ideal.

Birds move far too fast to reasonably ride alongside the average pedestrian on a sidewalk, and their silence prevents walkers from hearing a rapidly-approaching scooter. On the road, it is difficult to stay on course without eventually leading a parade of honking cars. Neither method is effective, yet Birds still find their way into streets and sidewalks.

The issues are not limited to when the vehicles are in motion, either. Shoving discarded scooters out of the sidewalk has become a hallmark of on-foot commutes. People utilizing wheelchairs often find themselves barred from a sidewalk altogether. In a sense, their omnipresence is a double-edged sword. While this isn’t exactly a pressing matter at the moment, the start of classes in the fall could bring a huge problem with it. What happens when students living in Tech Square, Centennial and Home Park all want an easy ride to their noon class at Clough? If Bird is expected to maintain its current popularity into the school year, that is an issue that must be addressed before Atlanta’s entire flock ends up on Tech Green.

In many ways, Bird could prove to be a positive force to campus and the city as a whole. The company pays Atlanta $1 a day per scooter in order to help with infrastructure and several measures have been put in place to reduce safety issues. Usage  data is closely monitored, with Bird claiming to reduce the number of scooters if they dip below a 3:1 ride-to-scooter ratio. These policies make up Bird’s ‘Save Our Sidewalks’ pledge, a policy enacted to mitigate the negative effects of the scooters on cities.

“From car ride-sharing to bike-sharing to autonomous and electric vehicles of all kinds, an explosion of innovation stands to transform the cities in which we like, improve the environment and help us get from point A to point B,” CEO Ryan Rzepecki states. “We have all seen the results of out-of-control deployment in China — huge piles of abandoned and broken bicycles overrunning sidewalks, turning parks into junkyards and creating a new form of pollution.”

Their recognition of these issues is a good step, but more concrete action can be taken to reduce problems. Until Bird can solve the issues of increased traffic — both vehicular and on foot — they will continue to draw the ire of city officials and traditional commuters. And if riders do not stop leaving their scooters in areas that obstruct pedestrian traffic, the negatives may ultimately outweigh the positives.

Bird is still a new company; these issues could very easily dictate whether the idea takes flight  or ultimately proves to be a bad egg.

The presidential elections for SGA this year cannot really be considered one. Evan Gillon and Ayo Aladesanmi are running uncontested for the position of president and vice president respectively, and so find themselves in an unusual situation. Elections are meant to provide students with an avenue to give power to who they believe best represents their interests, but the lack of candidates this year mean that students are left without even an illusion of choice. Evan and Ayo are going to have to step up to actively represent the interests of the student body, instead of smaller interest groups.

At face value, that itself presents a challenge: both are male, Greek, Ivan Allen College students and part of the same fraternity. Both even attended the same high school. They are representative of a small fraction of the student body, an issue that SGA’s Undergraduate House of Representatives (UHR) also suffers from. In some ways, much of the student body would have a right to feel alienated or unaware of what SGA does and the power they have, which could be partly to blame for the lack of candidates for presidential and representative elections.

They may reach out to students during campaign season, but once it is over, most departments and schools do not hear from their reps. Many students are unaware of who their representatives are, or what they do in UHR. Open forum at UHR, during which students are allowed to come in and talk, generally sees low attendance. It is important that — especially as uncontested candidates — Gillon and Aladesanmi address these issues. Although a part of their platform discusses this and considers ways to “empower students,” they have held considerable power in SGA in the past, and little has changed in terms of getting students involved. The House is disproportionately Greek, and so it also falls on the new executive to ensure they fill their cabinet with students from other backgrounds.

Their platform itself, although seemingly realistic, is also brief and vague. That makes sense if there are multiple candidates and students wish to compare big-picture ideas side-by-side to choose the candidate that represents their interests best. However, running unopposed means their platform needs to be expounded. Since their ascension is inevitable, the campus community should know more about what is currently being planned for.

Gillon and Aladesanmi’s continued efforts to reach out to students during this campaign season and their goals of bridging communication between students organizations and the SGA is admirable. Despite the fact that the presidential elections are uncontested, the broader goals of their platform are generally decent ideas and ones certainly that we can get behind.

However, we also believe that as the sole candidates, they do need to ensure that they are still able to better include the campus community during the election process, and continue doing so with regards to the SGA after they are elected. Creating a student body that is aware of SGA’s presence and actions on campus is the first step towards fostering a truly more inclusive community.

Presidential elections for Tech’s Student Government Association (SGA) are approaching, and we will be heavily scrutinizing the platforms of the candidates. But another  election that often receives less attention from the student community is that for the Undergraduate House of Representatives (UHR). It consists of representatives for each school and year, and one could argue they hold as much or more power than the executive branch of SGA. These representatives allocate more than $1.5 million in funds from the Student Activity Fee to various student organizations. Recently, they were responsible for providing $500,000 to mental health initiatives and the counseling center.

It is concerning to see that, despite being tasked with making such impactful decisions, the general student body is largely unaware of the power that these representatives hold. Lacking as well is the proficiency with which SGA has publicized them: The official web page for undergraduate representatives is outdated, with many listed already having graduated.

Students should be more aware of elections for representatives, as it affects all student life. The UHR make budgeting decisions with little to no oversight from administration, and many representatives often run with no ideological platform and little opposition.

Another big issue is the apathy during legislative sessions. Currently, the discussion sometimes falls to a few individuals, and we would like to see more representatives engaged in the conversation.

To combat this, more students should apply to run for representative positions. More contenders will naturally result in necessarily greater thought and effort put into the campaigns and the job. If not running, students should still make sure to participate by voting for representatives on elections.gatech.edu starting March 9.