The Jackets softball team ended their season on May 8th with a doubleheader loss to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. However, the team showed a great deal of improvement compared to the beginning of the year.  They finished with an overall record of 22-33 and a conference record of 7-16.

In their final 15 games of the season, the Jackets had a record of 6-9, with three of those losses coming in their final series against UNC. In addition, the team posted a 4-3 record on the road down the stretch, a marked improvement for a team that struggled so much away from home this year.

Unfortunately for the Jackets, their conference record landed them just short of making the ACC softball tournament.

While Tech was unable to post enough victories to extend their season, the young team showed improvement and still has even more room to grow.  The roster this season had consisted of eight underclassmen with key performers such as freshman catcher Kaylee Ellebracht, sophomore shortstop Kelsey Chisholm, and freshman first baseman Katie Krzus.

Moving forward, the Jackets will have to continue to make improvements in both hitting and pitching. Two of the primary pitchers used this year were underclassmen, and sophomore Emily Anderson dropped her earned run average by three points from this year compared to last year.

In the hitting department, the Jackets will definitely have to improve going into next year if they want to move up in the ACC standings. Their pitching was sufficient to keep them in games, but all too often, the offense could not deliver in tight spots.

The team batting average was .228 with only senior Courtney Ziese batting above .300. Going into next season, Head Coach Shelly Hoerner will have her work cut out for her.   

Despite the somewhat depressing tone the losing record shows, the team has improved over the past few years with Hoerner as head coach. In her third season, Hoerner has improved the Jackets’ total number of wins, increased the amount of hits, and decreased the team’s ERA.

In terms of honors for players, Courtney Ziese earned a spot on the All-ACC Second team and six players were named NFCA All-America Scholar-Atheletes.

Furthermore, in terms of talent coming in next year, the Jackets are bringing in the No. 24 recruiting class in the nation.  This recruiting class includes the No. 48 and 58 recruits in the country. In this recruiting class, Hoerner will be bringing in a pitcher, a catcher and four fielders, courtesy of ramblinwreck.com.

Going into next season the Jackets have a lot to look forward to. There are plenty of reasons for fans to think this year will mark a significant improvement over years past.

After all, the team is only losing three players, though Ziese’s bat will be missed, they have one of the top 25 recruiting classes in the country, and many of the returning players have showed improvement over their time at Tech

Perhaps most importantly, the team has consistency at the helm with Coach Hart. Steady improvement, frustrating as it may seem, is the trajectory the team has taken over the past two seasons, and with an influx of youth, there is no reason to believe that trend will not continue.

Tech softball has taken a backseat to sports such as men’s basketball and football in recent years. Its postseason drought, though, could soon be little more than a relic of the past.

The Jackets baseball team capped off what initially seemed to be a promising season with a very disappointing postseason run. Going into the ACC tournament the team was ranked  25th in the nation and put into a play-in game against the Boston College Eagles with the winner moving on to participate in pool play.

The Jackets won that game 6-0 off of the back of both solid hitting and pitching; however, as they advanced to pool play, the performance on both sides was lacking. They could afford few missteps against elite competition.

The Jackets’ pool consisted of two of the country’s top five teams: No. 2 Miami and No. 4 Florida State, not to mention No. 13 North Carolina State. During the season, Tech had a poor 2-7 record against these teams, only picking up wins against NC State and Miami.

The first matchup, the Jackets against the Miami Hurricanes, resulted in a disappointing 4-0 loss for Tech, with three runs coming in the first inning.

The following day, Tech faced a team that would go on to the conference finals: Florida State.  Another poor start sealed the Jackets’ fate in a 6-1 loss, and allowing four runs in the first three innings saddled the team with an insurmountable deficit.

Finally, the team faced off against the opponent they were closest to in the rankings, NC State. While both teams knew that the ACC title was out of reach, there was still the hope that a good performance could result in better seeding in the upcoming NCAA Tournament.

The Jackets again started poorly, giving up three runs in the second inning, but they rallied back with five tallies in an explosive fourth.

With third-year Matthew Gorst dealing on the mound, it seemed that Tech had all but locked up the game heading into the ninth inning.  With two outs and two runners on base in the last inning, Gorst forced Shane Shepherd into hitting a routine pop fly to center field; however, third-year Ryan Peurifoy was unable to come down with the catch and both runners scored.  Tech would not recover.

A common theme throughout the year for the Jackets was solid hitting with pitching that was good enough to pass; however, the hitting for Tech was extremely lackluster in all three pool play games. Runs were only scored in two out of 30 innings played.

The Jackets were given the second seed in the Gainesville regional, being paired with No. 1 overall Florida, the third-seeded University of Connecticut, and fourth seed Bethune-Cookman.  A rigorous draw for the team meant that they would have to put up extremely stellar performances across multiple games in hopes of advancing to a super-regional.

Two wins and two losses in the regional, including a suffocating 10-1 loss to Florida, was enough to eliminate the Jackets from regional competition.

With an unfortunate end to a season that started off so well, the Jackets continued to falter in key games. In the Danny Hall era, the Jackets are 55-45 in the postseason and have reached the super-regionals five times with no appearances since 2006.

As next season rolls around, it will be curious to see the changes Coach Hall makes, to the lineup and playing style alike. As the game trends more and more towards a pitcher-centric style it seems that the Yellow Jackets’ intent focus on offense is hurting their chances to compete for a College World Series. The talent is present in Atlanta; forming it into a title contender is the next step.

Oops! Drat! @#$%! Those are things you probably hear after making a mistake. In our daily lives, we make an uncountable number of mistakes of varying significance. It could be something as simple as turning the wrong way to go to class or pushing the wrong button on an elevator. Alternatively, it could be far worse like writing down the wrong due date for an assignment or incorrectly stating a fact that affects an upcoming business decision. Regardless, it’s only natural to make mistakes since, after all, we’re human.

It is easy to get discouraged by our mistakes. The feeling of regret after making a poor decision or feeling stupid after not remembering something trivial can be overwhelming.

Earlier this summer, I left the office to go out to a building to prepare for a network upgrade and I got there and realized I had forgotten things as basic as pen and paper. I had to trek back to the office, gather the things I should have brought the first time, and start my work in the building all over again. I easily wasted at least 30 minutes by forgetting those things.

This stuck with me over the next few days as I couldn’t believe I’d forget something so essential. Another time I wasn’t completely prepared for an assignment I was given. I showed up when it was time to execute and my plan that I thought was so excellently prepared turned out to be great in theory but quite poor in execution. Those mistakes combined to be a heavy weight on my shoulders of how things could have gone much better than they did.

Recently I’ve come to realize how valuable those mistakes really were. By making mistakes, there is still room to grow and improve. In the case of the assignment mentioned earlier, I was given the opportunity to test out some new skills and lead the project with the assistance of my more experienced coworkers.

When the team and I were implementing my plan, we began to realize that it wasn’t going to go as well as I had thought it would. While working through the issues, my coworkers were giving me suggestions on changes that could make the process easier. I learned so much in the few hours working with my team than I did in the entire planning stage. Looking back, I could have utilized my coworkers more in planning, and is something I’ll do in the future.

You could lament over mistakes like these and just give up when it gets overbearing, but that doesn’t help anyone. Don’t let mistakes define you — use them to grow. Most mistakes aren’t intentional, and any reasonable human in a similar position could have made the same ones you did. Look back on your mistakes, but in a positive light. It’s an opportunity to learn something new, and share in our human nature with our more experienced friends, coworkers, teammates and others. Forgetting sticky notes at the office is not the end of the world.

As the 2016 Presidential Election draws near, voters have once again been thrust onto the tightrope of American politics. I think it is safe to say that everyone’s views fall somewhere along the line, but at the end of the day they must find their way towards one of the two extremes. There are some views that will always find themselves on one particular side of the chasm; others will tiptoe the wire between conservatives and liberal until they are seen as ‘universally good’ by both camps.

LGBT rights have been historically seen as the former. The left has made it a large part of their platform in recent years, while the right has staunchly defended America’s traditional values. When viewed through the lens of other right wing beliefs, however, it becomes increasingly unclear as to why the barriers between conservative ideologies and gay rights even exist in the first place.

For conservatives, the U.S. Constitution is paramount to any other document or piece of legislation ever drafted in this country. Nothing else so perfectly and succinctly lays out the principles on which our nation was founded. For every argument against possessing firearms, the first response is always to point at the Constitution’s second amendment. Conservatives support a small government; if it oversteps its bounds on regulation, where will it draw the line to stop?

Why, then, should conservatives support the restriction of gay rights? A small and unintrusive government would certainly keep its nose out of business that is considered to be personal. If Congress can barely even find a way to regulate businesses, they should have no hand in regulating marriage.

Another argument is that homosexual relationships go against America’s traditional view of the “family.” But, at the same time, we are living in a time when almost three percent of girls between the ages of 15 and 19 will get pregnant. Roughly 40 to 50 percent of couples married in the United States will get a divorce. Clearly, the definition of  family is already undergoing a huge change.

Aside from this, most arguments tend to come from religious perspectives. While I am a God-fearing man, the idea of a Christian Sharia law is one that terrifies me. As I’ve mentioned, conservatives are never too keen on spitting in the face of the Constitution. As such, it makes no sense to me that conservatives point to their right to bear arms while skipping over the right to escape religious legislation. America was founded as a refuge for those escaping oppression. Creating laws based off of religion goes directly against our founding principles and parallels both the Catholic Britain we rebelled against and the Sharia law of many Middle Eastern countries today.

I am a Christian. I own a gun. I hold a lot of conservative beliefs. And when compared to other ideas held by the right, I think that equality for the gay community fits the bill perfectly. The sight of two men kissing still makes me uncomfortable, and I don’t pretend to understand arguments for genders other than male and female. But at the end of the day, I believe that at America’s core it is a land of freedom. If you’re gay, be gay. If you’re straight, be straight. Once this view takes hold on both sides of the perilous tightrope, America will be one step closer to what the Founders intended it to be.

I asked my dad the other day why he supported Bernie Sanders. He responded by stating that all the other candidates were corrupt, terrible and evil, and that Sanders was the only one who consistently maintained an ideology worth supporting. And while my dad didn’t actually say those things, the sentiment is one that seems to emanate from those entrenched deeply within Sanders’s camp.

So, if the other people running for president are really so corrupt, and evil, why are the majority of Americans in their corners? Well, Star Wars has shown us that
often, the bad guys have much cooler outfits. And that may indeed be a factor, what with Sanders usually looking like he rolled out of bed in the morning right onto the podium.

But that only provides an incomplete explanation. The truth is that Sanders’s rhetoric offers moral and political absolutism. And it is magnetic towards young adults who see it as a purity of sorts. This purity is infinitely preferable to any type of normal politician behavior, because the maneuvering and doublethink that so often comes with this political behavior is very easy to detest.

Yet what is not immediately apparent is that this ideological purity and unwillingness to change thinking in the slightest is exactly what leads to gridlock in government. Idealism is a fun fantasy to entertain when lacking experience of reality, but applied in practice, the result is absolutely nothing getting accomplished. The reason is quite easy to see; if our politicians permanently remain resolute and steadfast in their policies and stances, no compromise will ever be reached.

Despite the above, there are still those out there who believe that Sanders would be the best option for president. And why is this the case if it is so glaringly obvious that his tenure would be characterized by nothing happening? Well, according to myself ­ — a source to which I often refer — there are three main schools of political thought: pragmatism, idealism and fear. Of these, one is based on experience. One is a remnant of primal reactions and instincts. And the remaining, which I hope you’ve guessed is idealism, revolves around believing in that for which there is no evidence. And a large chunk of young, naive people will always fall into that category, just by consequence of being young.

One of the few things that can be said for the Sanders supporters in this election cycle is that they actually have genuine reasons to back their candidate. Most of them hear the issues and proposals he makes and nod their head in agreement. For the sake of this argument, it matters not that the majority of these proposals have no chance at becoming any more than ideas.

Contrast those who back Sanders with those who support Trump, a candidate for president whose rhetoric is comprised primarily of fear-mongering and grandstanding. These methods innately appeal to those members of society who have chosen not to allocate mental acuity towards this election.

Pragmatism, or centrism, is definitely not the sexiest. But it’s an approach that gets results. Where an idealist will ask for the farm and all of the cows, a pragmatic politician will understand that he’ll only be able to get the farm, and only then if he agrees to set aside five percent of his crop yield for the seller. Which isn’t headline-worthy, but it has been accomplished. Bipartisan alliances and real legislation come from compromises, which arise through pragmatic leaders and ideology. Not unrealistic demands.

What my dad did actually say was “I’m a millennial. Can’t you tell?” I could not, especially since my dad normally seems quite a bit smarter than the average millennial. But perhaps idealism is just a refreshing treat once in awhile, before a trip back to reality.

The Shakespeare Tavern is an Atlanta playhouse located just down the street from the Fabulous Fox Theatre. While both are known for their performances, the tavern, as its name would suggest, tends to focus on performances of Shakespearean plays, the most recent of which was “The Merchant of Venice.”

With many of the cast members from the May 2015 rendition reappearing in this month’s “Merchant of Venice,” the actors manage to convey their character’s predicaments with all the clarity one can reasonably expect of Shakespeare’s work. Luckily, the rather confusing start to the play sets up the characters and plot no farther than can easily be recapped in later scenes, and the audience soon overcomes the initial confusion to enjoy the later parts of the story.

William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” is named after Antonio (Matt Nitchie), a well-off merchant whose entire wealth is currently invested in foreign trade ships. Wishing to lend money to his friend Bassanio (Chris Rushing), the merchant agrees to borrow from Shylock (Doug Kaye), whom he has always despised both for being a moneylender and for being Jewish. Since this feeling is mutual, Shylock asks for a “pound of flesh” from Antonio should he not repay his loan within three months.

Thus ends the initial confusion as well as the set up of the play. The remainder of “The Merchant of Venice” shows how Bassanio spent Antonio’s money in pursuit of a woman (Portia, Amee Vyas) and finally, how a ruined merchant could resolve his debt.

Though officially classified as a comedy, the dual tales of the lovers and the merchant do not in themselves present much in the way of humor. There are throw-away lines and a few dialogues to make the audience laugh, but these spots of humor do not overshadow the rest of the story, leading one to question why this is still considered a comedy. On the other hand, the hallmark of tragedy (everyone dying in the end) is decidedly absent, as only Antonio’s life is in danger, so the sprinkling of jokes throughout tip the scales in favor of comedy despite the serious storyline.

This Shakespearean comedy will never be remembered for its political correctness or for its character’s stellar judgment and forethought. The story presents more than enough anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry with the actors showing that this was acceptable at the time when the play was written and takes place. It does, however, show that women are far more intelligent than given credit for as Portia, pretending to be a lawyer, seems to know the letter of the law better than all present in the court. This slight admission is not acknowledged by anyone, though and as soon as the cross-dressing ends, the women are treated just as they were before the display of intellect.

In addition to this aspect of a play from centuries in the past, whenever a character must make a pivotal decision, they either choose something foolish or are persuaded against their own judgment to do so. This leads to otherwise seemingly intelligent characters to make huge errors that advance the plot. Such lapses in judgment might be seen as typical human error when seen individually, but it is far easier, in this instance, to see them for what they are: plot devices.

Much like “Romeo and Juliet,” this Shakespearean play would have been extraordinarily short and devoid of a climactic ending had anyone thought about their ventures for even a minute longer.

The Tony Awards, or more accurately, the Antoinette Perry Award for Excellence in Theatre, were decided, for the 70th time, last week on June 12. Named after the founder of the American Theatre Wing, these awards recognize various achievements and talents in the realm of live Broadway theatre. While the debate of if the Tony Awards are the Oscars of Theatre or merely a “promotional vehicle” still rages, the fact remains that those who won the awards still deserve recognition for their talent.

There were 36 Broadway plays and musicals eligible for Tony Awards this year, about half of which were musicals. These plays included “Allegiance,” “Amazing Grace,” “An Act of God,” “China Doll,” and “Our Mother’s Brief Affair,” none of which received nominations for any of the
24 awards.

Of the rest of the plays, only eight won awards with “Hamilton: an American Musical” bringing in 11 single-handedly. The musical, which was about US founding father Alexander Hamilton, debuted on Broadway in August of last year to immediate success. “Hamilton” is an interesting yet informative form of biography. Songs convey the lesser known points of the American Revolution and aftermath as they pertain to the rather important lead character.

The Tony Awards confirmed the musical’s worth with 16 nominations, a new record. Some of its earned awards include ones for orchestration, choreography and lighting design.

“Hamilton” also earned awards for individual actors. The most interesting of  these categories was Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a  Musical, where three supporting actors in “Hamilton” were nominated for the same award. Beating out actors from “Shuffle Along” and “Waitress,” Daveed Diggs won for his role as Thomas Jefferson.

Phillipa Soo, who played Hamilton’s wife, herself an influential woman, was nominated for the fourth and final category for performers in musicals (Best Performance by a Leading Actress). Instead, however, that honor went to Cynthia Erivo for her role as Celie Harris Johnson in “The Color Purple.” In its original run, this musical also won for best actress when Rhonda LeChanze Sapp was playing the same role.

Based on a book of the same name by Alice Walker, the revival of “The Color Purple” musical also won the category for Best Revival of a Musical.

The second most popular play at the Tony Awards was “The Humans,” a new play about family, illness and relationships. It won in the coveted category of Best Play (with “Hamilton,” of course, winning the similar category of Best Musical) as well as for the category of Best Scenic Design. The other two awards received by “The Humans” were for the respective performances of two of its featured actors, Reed Birney as Erik Blake and Jayne Houdyshell as Deirdre Blake.

The revival of “Long Day’s Journey into Night,” garnered seven nominations and won for Best Lighting Design in a Play and for Jessica Lange’s leading role as Mary Tyrone. This was not the play’s first Tony Award, as it received the Tony Award for Best Play in 1957.

“A View from the Bridge” won for Best Revival of a Play and Best Direction of a Play. Ivo van Hove directed this convoluted love story that was originally written and later revised by Arthur Miller. This marks the second time that “A View from the Bridge” won the Tony Award for Best Revival of a Play, having previously earned this honor in 1998.

The remainder of the eligible Broadway plays and musicals won in a more modest number of categories, even though many were nominated for multiple awards.

The Tech Lacrosse team ended their 2015 season in an uncertain position. They had certainly always been a formidable player in the Men’s Collegiate Lacrosse
Association.

But a season that included no regular-season losses, wins against numerous top-20 teams and a tournament run that could only be stopped by MCLA powerhouse and eventual runner-up Colorado? This was a level of success that the Jackets had never seen before.

As such, the big question coming into 2016 was this: was it a fluke? After the Friday of Feb. 19, the words “fluke” and “Georgia Tech” were never used together again. An 18-5 dismantling of the Boston College Eagles, a rematch of a narrow overtime victory in 2015, assuaged all doubts about the Ramblin’ Wreck.

Seven days later, before a frenzied Tech crowd, the Jackets took on the team responsible for one of their two 2015 losses: the Virginia Tech Hokies. From the first goal to the final buzzer, the Jackets led their rivals from Blacksburg and gave the MCLA conclusive evidence that they were indeed a team to be feared. That is a theme the Jackets have oft repeated over the course of a wildly successful season, albeit one that has flown under the radar.

In the weeks since then, nothing has changed. Seven more wins have brought their record to 11-0 on the season, their second regular season in a row without a loss.

They have outscored opponents 187 to 50. Seven players boast double-digit goal counts on their stat sheets. They have won 70 percent of their faceoffs. These are not the numbers of a fluke but rather those of a talented, complete and hard-working team.

The Ramblin’ Wreck closed out their regular season on April 9 with a home match-up against the then-undefeated Georgia Bulldogs. Tech came into the game with a three-game win streak against their rivals from Athens, yet there was still reason to worry. The Dawgs were the only other undefeated team in the SouthEastern Lacrosse Conference, boasting an impressive 146 goals-for to 67 goals-against.

But all fears were assuaged when senior Ben Mertz gave the Jackets an early lead, scoring his first of three goals on the day. Midfielder Holland Frost added four goals in the first half while attackman Timmy Peterson put up three, bringing the halftime score to 11-5 in Tech’s favor. The Jackets came out of the day with a 19-8 victory and indisputable proof of their dominance.

Tech’s hard-hitting offense turned in a performance good for over 22 percent of all goals scored against UGA in their 14 games this season. This number is not an anomaly either; the Wreck averages almost 17 points a game.

The Jackets will look to continue this trend of offensive domination throughout the rest of April, where they will vie for an SELC championship. The win against UGA secured them a top seed in the tournament. The team is second only to Chapman nationally.

With 16 wins in 40 games and only three conference victories so far, Tech softball has had more downs than ups this season. They have struggled at home and had an even harder time when faced with unfriendly confines.

Nonetheless, there is a silver lining. Tech has already met its win total from last year. There are many lessons to be learned from the trials and tribulations the Jackets have had so far this season, and not all of them are bad.

Tech Leaves A-Game at Home

First things first, the Jackets struggle away from campus. There is no denying it. With only two victories out of thirteen away games, Tech has some growing to do. While it certainly never hurts to have success at home, the team needs to find a way to replicate those results away from Mewborn Field if they hope to take the next step. The Jackets returned from action last weekend with only one victory in four games.

Swing and a Miss

Though they have improved in this regard, hitting was still an issue as the Jackets spent the weekend in Lawrence, Kansas. The first inning of game one against North Texas offered optimism.

Samantha Pierannunzi kicked the game off with a double, and the Jackets continued to perform well offensively throughout the game. The Jackets scored in four of seven innings, and it seemed like the weekend would be a good one in terms of hitting.

That soon changed. In game two, the Jackets tallied only four hits with no runs. With that poor performance weighing on their minds, the Jackets continued to struggle through the final two games of the weekend, totaling only three runs.

Runners Stranded

When the Jackets were able to get on base, they had trouble moving runners into scoring position. In game three, Tech didn’t make it onto the scoreboard until two runs came through in the fourth inning, too little too late.

With ten hits throughout the game, the Jackets were comfortable at bat. However, that success at the plate did not reflect in the final score.

The last game of the weekend started off with a run in the first inning, but the Jackets were unable to make it onto the scoreboard for the final four frames, the game ending early thanks to the run rule. From five hits in the closing match-up against Kansas, the Jackets could only muster a single run, hardly enough even with quality pitching.

Consistency is Key

In spurts, the Jackets have shown the ability to be highly competitive. In a March homestand against North Carolina Central and Tennessee State, the team allowed two runs in a four-game stretch while scoring 21 themselves. The challenge is replicating that feat against tougher opponents, including a trying ACC slate. With 10 freshmen and sophomores on the team and only six upperclassmen, hot streaks and cold spells are to be expected.

The Future is Bright

Despite a record that suggests that little has been accomplished this season, a number of players have stepped up. Catcher Kaylee Ellebracht, only halfway through her debut season, is first in the conference in runners caught stealing, displaying a strong arm early in her career.

Pierannunzi’s performance in Lawrence lived up to the standards she set for herself last season, including her fourth double of the season to start the weekend.

Senior Courtney Ziese was 3-for-4 in the first game, helping the Jackets to outhit North Texas. In game three, Ziese earned the Jackets the second of their two runs with a single to right field, driving in Jessica Kowalewicz. Colleen Darragh was a perfect three for three from the plate in game three.

The Jackets took on UGA this past Wednesday, taking a hard 15-0 loss, and will spend next weekend in Pittsburgh sitting at ninth in the ACC table, one spot away from earning a berth to the conference tournament.

With 12 games against conference opponents left, Tech’s postseason hopes hang in the balance.

This year’s television season, especially this past week, has seen a veritable slew of minority characters being killed off or leaving their shows.

This deluge of death includes no less than six female characters who were in popular American shows. The recent events have stirred fan outrage and even started social uproars, such as was seen with the death of lesbian character Lexa (Alycia Debnam-Carey, “Fear the Walking Dead”) from “The 100.”

Most recently, Arden Cho, who became famous on “Teen Wolf,” announced on her YouTube channel that her character would not be returning next season. Cho devoted the last three years to “Teen Wolf” unable to work on side projects as the show’s creators were not willing to work around her schedule, unlike for her fellow cast mate Dylan O’Brian (“Mazerunner”). Cho did not chose to leave the show, but the showrunners decided that her character’s Asian backstory was no longer needed in the show’s plot.

This follows Nicole Beharie (“Shame”) being killed off in “Sleepy Hollow,” a show where she is the leading actress. Cho and Beharie’s departures shed more light on the unapologetic views of the writers and others in the entertainment industry.

Minority characters include characters of races, genders and sexualities that stray from the mold of a cis white male. The ratio of people that these characters are representing have become much larger in this decade. Here is the breakdown by numbers of diversity on broadcast TV shows from the 2015 GLAAD “Where We Are on TV” report out of 885 regular cast members: 4% (35) are gay, lesbian, or bisexual; 33% (287) are people of color; 43% (381) are women. Among the people of color — 6% Asian or Pacific Islander, 7% Latino/a and 16% Black characters. Now take into account that these statistics also include characters that are not the main or leading roles.

In the last few years, these numbers have definitely increased dramatically due to carefully chosen shows and characters, such as “Modern Family,” “Black-ish,” “Fresh off the Boat,” “Empire” and “Transparent,” just to name a few. However, it is unsettling to think that in shows that are not centered around a specific gender, sexual orientation or race — in other words, shows that should appeal and relate to all demographics — the actors in the minority character roles are being pushed out or made to feel that their characters are not as important as the white male characters. What is even more disturbing is that these characters are often killed off, not given a departure story that allows the character to live on somewhere else in their show’s world.

Denise (Merrit Weaver, “Birdman”) on “Walking Dead” and Rose (Bridget Regan, “Agent Carter”) on “Jane the Virgin” are but a couple of the lesbian or bisexual female character deaths this month. Fans have pointed out a misuse of the “lesbian death” trope to drive ratings, while some shows have argued that the characters were treated like anyone else, and their deaths were meaningful to the plot.

The only good that has come out of this debacle, is that actresses and actors are feeling more confident in leaving shows that do not treat their characters, or even the actors themselves, with the respect they deserve. It is saddening that, even though the viewers are asking for more diverse shows and characters and the number of diverse actors and actresses is increasing, show runners are sticking to their outdated views of what characters they need, want and care about — only seeing diversity as a box to check when necessary, as was the case with Arden Cho. Seeing the amount of displeasure seething from the masses of fans, it is hard to imagine why the networks cannot seem to align their thoughts with the current norms.