In the face of an ongoing housing crisis, these data centers wreak havoc on the quality, affordability and sustainability of housing in the United States.

With a shortage of almost seven million affordable homes in the United States and over 70 percent of low-income households spending more than half of their income on housing, demands for governments to incentivize the construction of subsidized housing have never been higher.

Although local governments, especially in urban areas, have made efforts to increase the availability of affordable housing, a lack of sweeping change at the federal level remains. For instance, the Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023, the largest legislation proposed to address the issue that sought to invest over $150 billion into affordable housing, was never passed.

Moreover, without significant government intervention, the American housing crisis will continue to worsen as developers are unlikely to invest in affordable housing projects that are not considered profitable investments without federal incentives.

Despite the overwhelming need for affordable housing in America, federal and state governments have instead decided to incentivize the construction of data centers, offering them large tax breaks and direct investments. Data centers not only consume vast amounts of land that could theoretically be used for housing, but they also demand five million gallons of water per day, equivalent to the amount consumed by a town of up to 50,000 people, making them ecological nightmares.

Since these data centers require so much water and energy, homes close to data centers bear the consequences instead of those building them. They have limited access to potable water, experience more frequent power outages and are subject to increased noise and light pollution.

Georgia couple Beverly and Jeff Morris live 400 yards away from Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta data center and have spoken about the havoc this data center has wreaked on their home. Their kitchen sink doesn’t produce water beyond a few drops tainted with sediment, their toilets do not have enough water to flush and the couple says they can no longer sleep at night because of how bright their home is. The Morris’ have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to add a well for drinking water access and to replace ruined toilets, faucets and other fixtures.

In a video interview, Beverly stated, “It is overwhelming because you really feel like you are up against this huge wall that you can’t penetrate. There’s nothing that you can do, and they don’t care.”

In Georgia specifically, data centers with an investment value of $15 million are eligible for tax abatement. So, while Zuckerberg receives a tax break, residents across the entire state of Georgia, not just those in proximity to the data center, experience bill increases and devastation to their quality life. For the Morris’, their electricity bill went up by $150 a month after the data center began operation.

It is telling that these massive data centers are specifically being built across regions in rural America that already face economic strife, especially when it comes to housing. Construction costs tend to be higher in rural areas, making it even less appealing for developers to build subsidized housing, which is already considered a bad investment.

Despite their heavy environmental toll, some struggling regions have embraced AI data centers as lifelines of economic investment. Morrow County, Oregon, for example, handed Jeff Bezos a staggering $1 billion in tax breaks over 15 years to secure his data centers.

While it is true that data centers create jobs and bring investment to rural communities, their effect on housing cannot be ignored. Even though urban areas face the greatest challenges when it comes to a lack of affordable housing, these issues are now trickling into rural areas at the same time as these data centers are popping up.

It might be pure coincidence that data centers and a rural housing crisis developed at the same time, but there is no denying that data centers only stand to make housing development and affordability more difficult in rural areas.

It is truly devastating that at a moment when America urgently needs affordable housing, resources are instead being funneled into data centers that divert investment and potentially erase the very possibility of building these homes.

Antonia Kladias, a senior majoring in biochemistry, is Pipe Dream’s opinions editor. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

Ozempic is just one drug that has circulated in the media for the past year. Any celebrity or influencer who loses a noticeable amount of weight is labeled as having taken a weight-loss drug. While celebrities can often readily obtain these drugs without a serious medical need for them, they contribute to an expectation in the minds of their followers and consumers — that they too should easily access Ozempic, and they too can experience the same weight loss.

Meanwhile, consumers may not be fully aware of Ozempic’s side effects or their severity, neglecting the real science behind the drug. The dangers of being miseducated about Ozempic are even more harmful, both medically and culturally, than promoting it. Even amid discourse about thinness and body positivity, there is a noticeable lack of attention to what Ozempic as a drug actually does to our bodies outside of weight loss.

If the body positivity movement has taught us anything, it is that overshadowing proper education on Ozempic with an unhealthy cultural obsession with body image — seen in our intense weight-loss regimes, diets and drugs — is part of the problem. Understanding Ozempic from a scientific perspective is key to culturally decentering body image and promoting healthier habits.

Ozempic was never intended to be a weight-loss drug. In fact, Ozempic is prescribed to treat Type 2 diabetes and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for weight loss, which is only a side effect. It is a GLP-1 agonist, lowering blood sugar and causing the pancreas to produce more insulin. For people with Type 2 diabetes, this helps regulate blood sugar, maintaining stable levels even if their bodies do not use insulin properly.

Although not officially approved, Ozempic is most known as a weight-loss drug. The active ingredient of Ozempic, semaglutide, mimics a hormone in the body released after eating that suppresses appetite by sending a signal to the brain that the user is full. Semaglutide is also the active ingredient in Wegovy, a prescription drug approved to prevent heart disease and treat obesity through weight management. These drugs have served their intended and unintended purpose, allowing people to lose an average of 12 percent in body mass.

However, the popularization of these drugs by people who do not necessarily need them cannot be taken lightly — not only because it has caused shortages and high prices but also because of the negative side effects, which have been neglected.

Taking any prescription drug without proper medical approval is dangerous, but for Ozempic, there are more ramifications beyond physical harm. Once you begin taking Ozempic, you will likely have to continue using it — and paying for it — indefinitely. When your body becomes accustomed to the drug, it is nearly impossible to get off of it and experience the same physical weight loss without significant lifestyle changes. A 2022 study found that the majority of Ozempic users gained back their weight within a year after stopping the drug.

Ozempic has essentially been promoted as a way to totally fix people’s struggles with weight or body image, but one drug cannot be the solution. Since Ozempic really only works by suppressing appetite, taking the drug alone will not solve all the issues associated with being overweight.

Instead of a tool for people to add to diet and exercise, Ozempic has instead been popularized as a passive way to lose weight, not in the name of physical health, but solely for physical appearance. Because of this, it may be hard to access for those in need of the drug for health concerns.

These drugs also have serious side effects besides weight loss, like gastrointestinal problems and even thyroid tumors, and these risks only compound with increased use. Significant weight loss can also decrease bone density and muscle mass, increasing the risk of fractures and slowed metabolic rates. A slower metabolism makes it even harder for someone to lose weight once off the drug.

The marketing of weight-loss drugs as an easy way to lose weight and attain an idealized body type neglects how unsustainable the rapid weight loss achieved is and how weight loss often changes more than your figure.

Weight-loss drugs have existed for years, but the popularization of Ozempic on social media is uncharted territory. Drugs have typically been defined either as recreational or medical, but Ozempic, as we know it, has become a category of its own.

Even as doctors advise against taking weight-loss drugs without serious medical need — one even calling it drug abuse — social media undermines these efforts by glamorizing their use and neglecting the science behind them. Ironically, the weight-loss effects of Ozempic are physically obvious, but there is not enough transparency about the negative side effects caused by taking weight-loss drugs.

What compounds the physical risks of taking these drugs is the cultural neglect of these dangerous side effects. Proper education on Ozempic and its side effects will prevent further popularization of its improper use, ensuring access for those who need it, encouraging healthy body standards and maintaining that drugs affect more than our figure.

Antonia Kladias is a junior majoring in biochemistry and is Pipe Dream’s assistant opinions editor.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

With constant threats to and regulations on reproductive rights, it comes as no surprise that IVF has recently fallen under attack by conservative politicians. Last February, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos created using IVF techniques are protected as an “unborn child” by the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act (1872), which declared a fetus developing in utero was a child in order to protect parents of pregnancies lost to violence or other incidents. By ruling that this act applied to IVF embryos, these embryos were given the same rights as children. This is problematic because, in most cases, IVF treatments produce backup embryos that can be frozen and used by couples for later pregnancies. With the new ruling, if these embryos are not used and discarded or lose viability due to other circumstances, like improper handling, doctors and clinics can be held liable for the death of children.

After this ruling, clinics in Alabama paused IVF treatments, restricting access and forcing those already in the process to wait or even start over. Eventually, the Alabama Legislature granted immunity to providers for embryo destruction. Still, even though IVF was ultimately protected in the end, the situation created an atmosphere of fear for patients and doctors alike and spurred much debate among politicians.

This atmosphere of fear has lingered and will continue to persist into the future, especially in the scenario of a Republican-controlled Congress or presidency. Since the February ruling and those after it, Republicans have contradictorily voiced support for IVF, calling the procedure “pro-life” while simultaneously supporting the Life at Conception Act, which declares the right to life at the moment of fertilization. If this act is passed, many clinics would be forced to close because embryo destruction could be prosecuted as homicide, which is essentially what happened under the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling with the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

Further, this past June, Senate Republicans voted against the Right to IVF Act, a bill put forth by Democrats to protect access to IVF nationwide as a right. Many Republicans argued that the bill was unnecessary because there were no current IVF restrictions. In response, the GOP tried to place these restrictions, introducing their own bill, the IVF Protection Act. Despite what the name suggests, the act would heavily burden clinics with restrictions and inevitably force many to close their doors. Without guaranteeing protection to unrestricted fertility treatments, Republican leaders are not truly protecting the IVF process they claim to support. Republicans are not committed to IVF, and their contradictory laws will continue to cost women and families security.

In the upcoming presidential and congressional elections, reproductive rights will once again be a divisive issue. Unrestricted IVF access has been essentially guaranteed to families for decades and denying this access now prevents the people who have a right to have children from doing so. Many Republican leaders use pro-life rhetoric to argue that they will always protect fertility treatments, but their actions show otherwise — restricting IVF through laws like the Life at Conception Act is nearly the opposite of being “pro-life.” The contradictions in the Republican belief system are unfair — giving verbal support to IVF while taking legislative action against it only serves to scare and blindside voters.

Another term of Republican governance would not only mean abortion bans and monitored pregnancies but also further restrictions on birth control and fertility treatments. JD Vance, Trump’s vice presidential pick, notably voted against the Right to IVF Act in June and seems to be generally against and ashamed of fertility treatments, stating that he “wouldn’t have a family because of IVF” and that his children were “born through that direct … [way].” Vance also accused Kamala Harris’ vice presidential pick, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, of lying about his family’s use of fertility treatments. Moreover, Vance makes fertility treatments seem wrong or unnatural, which is widely inappropriate considering the growing need and use for these treatments in the United States. As a now leading and center-stage Republican, Vance’s opinions hold serious weight in the party.

The political issue of IVF and other fertility treatments parallels that of abortion — it is a place where divisive and highly political legislation does not belong. Threats to all reproductive rights deny women full control of their bodies and their right to choose — at the end of the day, unrestricted access to IVF gives women the right to choose to have children on their own terms. While this is a right that should be guaranteed, GOP legislation must keep up with their words.

Antonia Kladias is a junior majoring in biochemistry and is Pipe Dream’s assistant opinions editor.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

The expansion of renewable energy in the West has led to unethical labor practices and environmental damage in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Researchers investigating renewable technology supply chains in the DRC found the use of toxic pollution, child labor, biodiversity loss and subjugation of ethnic minorities in these areas. A primary resource mined in the DRC is cobalt, a critical resource for renewable energies like wind power and even electric vehicles. However, 30 percent of this cobalt is mined by women and children who sneak into mines to fund their livelihoods because of widespread poverty and a gender wage gap. Furthermore, lithium extraction to produce lithium batteries, another key renewable resource, has affected local habitats and freshwater access, particularly impacting Indigenous communities. The exploitative labor in places like the DRC often go ignored by Western media and the people and governments advocating for green energy. The poor labor practices and environmental damage in the DRC are funding renewable energy projects in the West, but rarely in the places where the labor is being performed. We cannot justify these labor practices just because we’re the ones benefiting from them.

Fifty percent of the DRC does not have electricity, yet the Congolese population is performing nearly all of the labor to provide new forms of electricity to the West and other developed nations. The dominance of the West has historically led to dangerous and exploitative outsourced labor performed by impoverished and vulnerable populations. Climate change solutions are the perfect place for a global effort to be enacted and for this cycle to be broken. If the West can use its power to ensure renewable energies are shared with the rest of the world, then climate solutions can be experienced equally and their environmental effects will be even more powerful.

Renewable energy projects take up large plots of land, often displacing local and Indigenous communities, primarily in developing, impoverished countries. For example, wind farms require at least 60 acres of land per megawatt of energy produced. When you consider the energy needs of our modern world, wind and solar energy will require a significant amount of land, displacing many local communities from their homes and causing environmental destruction. An increased demand for wind energy has led to deforestation in the Amazon basin. This has created a sort of “green paradox” in which renewable energy is actually promoting other forms of environmental damage.

Renewable technologies also produce a significant amount of hazardous electronic waste or e-waste. Many of today’s solar panels are expected to expire by 2050, which will produce 78 million metric tons of waste. Improperly disposed or recycled e-waste is hazardous and often releases toxins into the environment. Not only does this waste contribute to environmental damage, but much of this e-waste is processed in countries in Africa and Asia where toxic pollution fuels public health crises. E-waste is fueling further environmental injustice and disproportionately impacting impoverished, developing areas and people of color.

Historically, primarily white and wealthy communities have been able to invest in infrastructure that more readily upholds environmental safety while marginalized communities are exploited as places where waste is dumped, highways and industrial warehouses are built and natural resources are destroyed. As seen with last year’s train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, environmental safety is not prioritized in impoverished communities. After this incident, action was delayed and community members’ demands and calls for urgency were disregarded and downplayed. Renewable energy gives us the chance to restructure our infrastructure choices to support environmental justice and change the historical injustices that have become normalized.

While renewable energy is making huge strides for the environment, there are still issues to figure out and social consequences to consider. Renewable energy needs to ensure sustainability and reduce further environmental damage. The benefits of renewable energy should not be exclusive to Western countries or come at the expense of other countries perpetuating global and national environmental injustices and discrimination. Governments need to invest in ethically sourced renewable energies and for global institutions to ensure equal access to these resources through legislation and global climate restoration efforts. If the United States does pass a Green New Deal, it must include stipulations about ethical labor practices and investments in renewable energies where this labor is done. As we change the way we impact the Earth and mitigate years of climate change, we also have the opportunity to change historically accepted power dynamics and economic structures. Allowing the same exploitation and inequities to continue would be short-sighted and unsustainable.

Antonia Kladias is a sophomore majoring in biochemistry and is Pipe Dream’s Opinions Intern.

Higher education today heavily caters to STEM majors, which receive higher funding and greater focus. Even for STEM majors, there is value in liberal arts programs, and any education without them would be incomplete. STEM students need the liberal arts to develop strong communication, cultural intelligence and creative thinking skills. Without liberal arts programs, STEM students would become one-dimensional. The world cannot function with STEM alone, and cutting liberal arts programs in higher education foreshadows an incomplete and unbalanced education system.

Of course, it makes sense for universities to cut programs with little enrollment when facing budget deficits, but there seems to be a disproportionate cutting of liberal arts programs. This begs the question of why the United States seems to be shifting to a more STEM-focused education system. Grants go toward STEM programs that align with high-paying careers that are in high demand, helping to fully develop emerging fields, but tend to leave liberal arts programs in the dust. It may be possible that this shift is directly related to how STEM careers play into the United States economy — 67 percent of United States jobs and 69 percent of the nation’s GDP are supported by STEM, and STEM annually produces $2.3 trillion in federal tax revenue.

The disproportionate funding for STEM programs by state and federal grant programs also means students in liberal arts programs have fewer options for financial aid and scholarships. With rising tuition costs, students may be more inclined to choose a STEM major where they can receive a scholarship over a liberal arts major. STEM careers are also typically higher in demand, so students can find jobs soon after graduation, further pushing them toward these majors. This creates a cycle of students choosing STEM majors over liberal arts, leading to fewer students enrolled in liberal arts programs and further cuts to liberal arts funding.

Liberal arts should not be left behind in higher education. If anything, more funding would help revitalize these programs and make them more appealing to students. At public schools, state education requirements often guarantee general education funding, but the same is not true for private schools. Small private schools that haven’t been able to catch up to larger universities with more funding are pouring money into STEM programs in an effort to catch up, only making themselves less academically diverse. Without liberal arts programs, our world would not look the way it does. After all, how could someone become a doctor with no basic idea of sociology or anthropology? Liberal arts courses teach us about people, and without them, we’d live in a world with no compassion or understanding. Cutting liberal arts programs is not the solution to budget deficits at universities. A general education background is necessary for a well-rounded education and success after graduation.

Antonia Kladias is a sophomore majoring in biochemistry.

Recently, social media has fostered the spread of large amounts of misinformation. This has become an especially large issue surrounding the Israel-Hamas war, as fabricated disinformation has made its way onto numerous social media platforms. There have been numerous instances of people pretending to be authoritative figures in voice memos and videos with the intention of sparking conflict and spreading hateful messages. For example, one video of a woman claiming to be a former soldier on the Gaza Strip sparked rumors of Israel’s government aiding Hamas’ entry into the area. This video rapidly spread through the internet, spreading an almost sensationalist claim that has not been proven. In another instance, a voice memo from someone claiming to be an intelligence soldier for Israel’s Arab population described a false attack plan in which Palestinian citizens would ambush Israeli citizens using vehicles with Israeli plates. This, again, was spread rapidly on social media and taken to be true. These fabricated messages have been used to dehumanize both groups of people and has created contention in a conflict that is deeply intricate, leading to extreme polarization on social media. Some say misinformation is being intentionally spread by both sides to garner larger support which has ultimately sparked violent sentiments and confusion and created mistrust of authorities.

This isn’t the first time social media has created deep polarization. The past two presidential elections in the United States have been notably polarized, in a large part because of social media disinformation. But polarization over a political election is not the same as in a conflict where so many human lives have been lost on both sides. In a political election, people’s livelihoods are not being actively threatened and destroyed through violence. By treating conflicts like politics, we lose sight of the larger issue of violence and turn people’s lives into statistics to use in a debate. Social media separates us from the issue at hand and focuses people’s attention on who is posting rather than what is actually being shared. People base their opinions on a few short posts they read — which likely come from biased sources — instead of fully educating themselves on what they are seeing. People’s opinions are also easily swayed by what they are seeing from their friends or celebrities, and there is a large pressure to post despite not being invested in or educated on an issue, further spreading misinformation.

There is almost an expectation that exists in the current nature of social media that when there is a contentious issue in the news, you should post your reaction to it. This expectation has largely been the reason for much of the performative activism and misinformation we are seeing now on social media and that we’ve seen in the past. This idea isn’t a new one, but why has nothing changed? Social media platforms benefit from mass user engagement when polarizing issues are trending and their automated systems and algorithms seem to push out more contentious media. Research on these platforms and their attempts to limit this is minimal, but it is clear that they do not do a good job of policing themselves to limit the polarization they create and prevent the spread of misinformation. Many have called for governments to take action against these platforms through policy, but, realistically, it would be difficult to pass a law to police everything on the internet. Because of this, it is important for social media users themselves to be vigilant and cautious of what they share and see on social media.

There is power in connecting people who share similar beliefs through social media, but when action doesn’t continue beyond these platforms, no real change is being made and the importance of these issues is diluted to trends or criticism of others for what they do or don’t share. In this way, social media has disincentivized activism through the surface-level satisfaction people feel after sharing a post instead of becoming more involved in the issues they are posting about. Education is only the first step of activism and much more — like pressuring leaders and rallying — needs to be done if real change is to happen. Social media has played a large role in separating us from the issues we see and dividing people in polarized sides, fostering dangerous dehumanization and performative activism. During times like this, it is important to remain diligent and take action to educate yourself before sharing information with others.

Antonia Kladias is a sophomore majoring in biochemistry.

Recent news has focused on the effectiveness of older leaders in government roles. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Dianne Feinstein are notable figures whose ability to serve has recently been questioned. Feinstein is 90 years old and has missed over 90 votes because of health issues. Feinstein has also regularly appeared confused, even beginning to make a speech during a July vote in the Senate. She has refused to step down and plans on finishing this term, making this one her last. Feinstein has made countless leaps in the Senate as an independent voice since 1992, supporting environmental justice, progressive and civil rights movements and criminal justice reform. Her career has made her an icon for women in politics, but her absences diminish her voice in the Senate and prevent her from continuing the great work she has done. Without her stepping down, a younger leader who could better serve in this capacity cannot take over. Older government leaders should step down not only because of the obstacles that come with age, but also to make room for younger leaders who can bring more progressive ideas to politics. Personally, I feel like the same issues are being argued and revisited constantly by the same people, making me disillusioned with politics. New, younger leaders would refresh our political climate with new ideas better suited to their constituents.

Senate minority leader McConnell has also had a long, successful career in the Senate, spanning back to 1984. McConnell has been a notable figure in the Republican Party for decades and served as Senate majority leader from 2015 to 2021. Recently, though, McConnell’s effectiveness in a leadership role has been questioned. Back in July, McConnell froze during a news conference before having to be escorted out by colleagues. The public health declines of McConnell and Feinstein raise questions about their capacity to serve the nation and what may come of the 2024 presidential election.

Of course, age doesn’t always make leaders ineffective, but health concerns and antiquated ideology can inhibit progress and stifle new leadership and ideas. The upcoming 2024 presidential election has brought these issues to the forefront. President Biden is 80 years old, and former President Trump is 77 — almost 70 percent of Americans have concerns about both of these figures being able to serve as president because of their ages. Many Americans have begun advocating for fitness tests and a mandatory retirement age for older leaders. Younger generations have become restless watching older politicians slow down the progress of the nation and take the spots of younger leaders who better understand their wishes and needs.

We can continue to respect older leaders and their careers, but recognize that there is a point where they are no longer fit or needed to serve. At a certain point, a disconnect grows between older and younger generations, and leaders don’t understand the needs of voters. Younger leaders can provide new ideas and practices to a government in desperate need of refreshing. Younger generations are inspired by new faces in politics who can relate to them and are invested in a collective future. As young voters, we should advocate for new leadership and support rising, young politicians who support movements that are important to our generation and our futures. If older leaders refuse to step down, aptitude tests for politicians over a certain age should be instated. But, term guidelines don’t need to change unless they have to. Leaders should be inspired by the actions of Romney and leave space for a younger generation of leaders to rise to the forefront of politics in America.

Antonia Kladias is a sophomore majoring in biochemistry.

It seems that, overall, a rise in technology-use and consumerism is causing kids — especially young girls — to grow up faster than they used to. Technology and consumerism have disproportionately detrimental effects on girls in terms of image and self-esteem, which is tied to disordered eating and mental health.

Social media is a catalyst for girls growing up too fast. Young girls are exposed to unrealistic standards for what they should look and act like. One study found that 70 percent of models in the modern era are underweight, unlike models of the past. Models have historically represented the beauty standards of the time, and this change has promoted poor body image and, in turn, disordered eating in young girls. In fact, teenage girls today struggle with eating disorders at over twice the rate of teenage boys.

Further studies have shown that the prevalence of eating disorders among girls has increased over the past 50 years, with up to five percent of adolescent girls being diagnosed with bulimia and about half a percent of 15- to 19-year-old girls being diagnosed with anorexia. When young girls are exposed to images that promote an unhealthy and unachievable standard, they become preoccupied with their appearance and hyper-fixated on achieving an ideal body, with many resorting to dangerous means to obtain it.

The effect of these images was also found to be more significant in girls younger than 19 years old. In fact, grade-school-age girls on the internet strive for petite body types and post about diets and exercise routines designed for fully developed adults.

There have been times in my life where I have taken a break from social media because I felt that it was hurting my self-image, but I worry — do young girls have the same level of self-awareness? Young girls may not be able to fully understand how social media influences their image and continue to expose themselves to the media, which is harming them, especially if they grew up with it.

At this point, restrictions on social media would be difficult to implement, so we have to consider the media we put out there for young girls to see. It is important to empower young girls and educate them on the dangers of the media they are exposed to, using social media as a way to do so.

Consumerism is another factor driving this trend. Companies have begun targeting young girls in order to increase sales. Much of this content is sexualized and promotes unrealistic standards for young girls. Brands like American Eagle and Abercrombie and Fitch have even marketed push-up bras to girls as young as 15.

Companies realize that preying on young girls’ self-esteems allow them to market products typically sold to older women, like makeup, skincare and weight-loss products, to a much larger audience. In combination with social media, the promotion of these products makes young girls believe they are supposed to look and act like grown women before they even graduate high school. This is a large concern because the sexualization of young girls in media and marketing has also been linked to mental health concerns in young girls.

It’s not easy to prevent a trend as large as this that is rooted in capitalism and patriarchy, but we cannot let these patterns continue to harm young girls. Of course, the way growing up looks has changed and will continue to change, but the fundamental ideas of childhood have not gone away and should not be lost.

I think great strides have been made with body-positivity and other empowerment movements, but these ideas need to go further. Large brands, media companies and others promoting these ideas need to be pressured to limit this content and show young girls that there is no need to worry about their appearance from such a young age. Girls need to be encouraged to stay young and be confident in who they are or who they will become — not to grow up to become a false ideal inauthentic to themselves.

Antonia Kladias is a sophomore majoring in biochemistry.

Poorer countries also have more difficulty recovering from extreme weather events brought on by climate change without the resources wealthy countries have. Because many developing countries are located in climate risk zones, people in low- and lower-middle-income countries are five times more likely to be displaced by extreme weather events than people in high-income countries. Even on a smaller scale, marginalized communities are most affected by the warming climate because of inequalities in race, gender and class, a fact often overlooked by climate policy.

As climate conditions worsen, divisions between and within countries are exacerbated and divisions are drawn along these lines, as those most affected by climate disasters are least likely to have the resources to adapt afterward — further pushing them into marginalized roles. As the climate worsens, access to resources like clean water, food and adequate housing is reduced, which creates further insecurity where a lack of these resources already exists. Effective climate change policy within nations and beyond borders must address systemic social and economic inequalities to ensure the most vulnerable populations are not left behind in climate decisions that affect them the most. Progressive reform that guarantees workers’ rights and invests in public services like health care and education is necessary to ensure climate change and the damage it causes are reduced. These reforms will tackle unsustainable working and living conditions.

While climate change worsens inequality, inequality simultaneously fuels climate change. As wealthy countries outsource industries to developing nations, emissions are driven up as these nations have not had their industries regulated through global climate policies or modernized to become more sustainable practices. In fact, 10 percent of the richest nations are responsible for between 36 and 49 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Global policy must be implemented that ensures the industry in developing countries meets climate standards, and wealthy nations should be responsible for investing in sustainable outsourced industries to reduce their emissions.

Additionally, poverty in developing nations often forces communities to put more pressure on the environment, which often leads to unsustainable agricultural practices, deforestation and overexploitation of natural resources. This can also be connected to substandard education regarding sustainable practices in developing countries. These environmental stresses contribute to reductions in natural carbon absorbance from trees and usable land for agriculture, forcing further deforestation. Poorer nations rely the most on the environment being safely protected, while unsustainable practices within their own populations and those brought in by wealthy nations create a cycle of vulnerability to climate change and environmental damage.

Wealthy nations are making most of the global climate decisions, but they have often failed to realize that their decisions need to reach beyond their own borders and beyond the climate itself. Environmental change disproportionately affects poor nations and marginalized communities within wealthy ones, so policies addressing climate change will not be effective unless they address these inequalities. Wealthy and poor nations must work together to draft policies that will provide aid to poor countries disproportionately affected by climate change and ensure wealthy countries are held accountable for their decisions that exacerbate climate change.

Sustainability has become a privilege under capitalism, which survives on cheap labor and exploitation. If we cannot provide the means for poorer nations to become more sustainable and ensure that wealthy countries invest only in sustainable, non-exploitative industries, climate change will continue to divide nations and worsen the conditions of the most vulnerable populations. Climate policy must seek to reduce emissions while mitigating the social and economic inequalities that exist on national and global levels.

Antonia Kladias is a freshman majoring in biochemistry.

However, going into college with the idea that these are supposed to be the best years of your life makes expectations too high and leaves many people disappointed or worried when things are hard. College is not really what I expected, and I’ve often wondered if it’s something to do with me, not college itself. The fantasy of what college is supposed to be like rarely comes to fruition and, for many, admitting that feels wrong. This makes people reluctant to drop out or change the course they are on for something different because they have false hope that things will get better and don’t want to waste the time or money they spent on college. This sunken cost fallacy especially impacts low-income students. These students often face the dual pressures of having to work on top of school and make financial decisions that will impact themselves and their families. These students can’t take the same time to make mistakes and figure things out the way others can and they feel isolated when they don’t have the same experiences as other students. It’s difficult to work a part-time job and have the carefree, fun college experience we all expect or make the same mistakes other students can with little consequence. The perfect college experience is a fairly privileged one that not many actually get to have.

Often, the ideal social life in college is portrayed in pop culture and even by older adults as one filled with free time, friends and parties. It is a great privilege to be able to pay for a college education, and especially to treat the education itself as a secondary priority to having a social life that you can look back on in the future as defining the “best years of your life.” Low-income students miss out on this “normal” college experience because they may not have the luxury of free time if they have to work to afford going to college. Even if students can afford to go college, many still prioritize doing well in school over social life in hopes of future economic mobility. Holding onto the idea that college is meant to be the best years of your life pressures students to prioritize attaining the media’s idea of a perfect college experience rather than a college experience that will create better futures.

Even if you enjoy your college years, believing that these are supposed to be the best years of your life takes away from fully enjoying your future. The idea of having to get a job and become a real-life grown-up sounds awful, but there is so much more that life has to offer outside of these four years, and you shouldn’t look to your future with the idea that it can never beat your college years. And if you don’t enjoy your college years, your life isn’t doomed to be miserable either — there is plenty of time to figure out what you want to do with your life and college doesn’t have to be the only place this happens. We should all try to enjoy our college years the best we can, but your entire life should not be defined by four years. College is certainly a fulfilling experience, but it is damaging to expect the picture-perfect college fantasy to come true for everyone.

Antonia Kladias is a freshman majoring in biochemistry.

Although the nature of these events differs, comparing the response to Hurricane Sandy in New York City to the response in East Palestine illustrates a clear imbalance in concern for rural areas compared to urban ones. The decisions made in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy established a precedent for dealing with similar circumstances quickly and effectively. This kind of response has been nonexistent in Ohio — the concerns of residents are being ignored, and nobody is taking responsibility. But neglect of rural areas goes beyond one in a million situations like this. Huge disparities have existed between public health care in rural and urban areas for the past 20 years, resulting in higher mortality rates in rural areas compared to urban ones. Unemployment and poverty rates are also higher in rural areas, and job growth has plateaued in rural areas while skyrocketing in metropolitan areas.

The neglect of rural areas stems in large part from a stigma that pervades the United States. Rural areas are considered obsolete, and their function in our nation’s economy is often overlooked. However, rural areas provide essential services in agriculture, mining and forestry that could not exist in urban areas. Urban areas get credit for diversity and industry that isn’t given to rural areas, but rural areas are more economically and demographically diverse than many people tend to realize. Rural populations are often considered to be exclusively white, which proportionately is close to true, but since 97 percent of the United States’ land mass is rural, thinking of rural areas as homogeneous discounts the existence and experiences of marginalized groups throughout the country who live in these rural areas.

Rural people are often stereotyped as backward and traditional, and are therefore not given as much respect as they deserve in the United States. Because of this, policymakers often neglect the importance of rural society and the nuance that exists in rural counties. Current policies aimed at increasing job growth and reducing poverty in rural areas fail to address the primary sources of inequality between rural and urban areas, such as access to quality education, health care and affordable housing. Subsidies to rural areas frequently go to the wrong places, favoring urbanization and corporate growth over education and fair labor standards for existing industries. The policies enacted also neglect the diverse and individual needs of rural areas, treating every county the same despite differences in economic and demographic makeup.

Rural areas don’t need to be urbanized — they just need access to resources that can help their existing economies flourish and last. Investing in equitable education, sustainable agricultural and industrial development and high-quality public services will allow rural areas to succeed. With this, an increase in social protection and equal access to natural resources will ensure growing, diverse populations in rural areas can thrive. The stigma surrounding rural areas is harmful and has caused ineffective policies to be implemented. This has fostered a growth in the divide between urban and rural areas in the United States, and rural areas have been neglected as a result. Rural America has always been the backbone of the United States, and leaving it to perish will have negative ramifications for us all.

Antonia Kladias is a freshman majoring in biochemistry.

Living in a double at Hinman College or in College-in-the-Woods, the two oldest communities on campus, costs $5,377 per semester. Living in Dickinson community or Newing College costs about $600 more per semester on average. These communities are only about 10 years old compared to the 60-year-old buildings of Hinman College and College-in-the-Woods and are significantly nicer. $600 extra per semester to live in greater luxury seems fair, but living on campus is already a high cost for the average student, so an extra $600 is a large, unnecessary expense, especially without knowing the differences between these communities. If you don’t like the place you end up, it is difficult to get moved into a nicer dorm, which can create issues for people who took out loans or did not account for the extra expense of living in a nicer community when they arrived. Since loan disbursements would typically be paid out before someone decided to change their room, the money a student receives for housing may not cover the price of their new dorm.

While I understand that it is impossible to make the dorms completely equal, it isn’t really fair to students to have such different conditions between buildings on campus because of the larger impact this has on students’ well-being. Living in a dorm is already a stressful experience — privacy is nearly impossible, and living in such a small place can become overwhelming (3). However, these stressors are reduced when the dorms are nice and comfortable. In my experience, being in my dorm does not help to alleviate any of the stress I develop throughout the day — frankly, it tends to worsen when I get back to my room, especially because I have to use a communal bathroom where I can’t even shower without someone else being there. One of my friends who moved from Oneida Hall to the Dickinson Community this semester told me that her entire perspective on college and mood overall have changed drastically since the fall. She credits a lot of this to a change in her living environment. Most of the people I talk to in my building complain about our living conditions, and all agree that it is unfair that we are paying the same amount to live in worse conditions. It doesn’t make sense to subject some students to these stressors more than others, especially when you consider the price difference between these communities.

This is a problem outside of BU. At the University of the South, all students pay the same room and board cost, whether they live in a newly renovated dorm or one of the “run-down” buildings with no AC. Many students there feel their dorms are unbearable and wonder why the school invests in new buildings instead of renovating the old ones. The same argument can be applied to BU — renovating the old buildings to match the new ones should take priority over expanding housing. The largest expense students have to pay is housing, which means the most profit for the school comes from there — and many students are suffering because of the school’s desire to expand and admit as many students as possible. Evidently, Oneida Hall was supposed to be renovated next year, but renovations have been pushed back to ensure more freshman housing.

Being able to save over $1,000 a year can make a big difference for students and their families, but students shouldn’t have to compromise their comfort just to afford to live on campus. It’s easy to say that the dorm you live in is pure luck based on a randomly assigned housing slot, but we can’t ignore how the price difference impacts where people choose to live. With the current housing system, you have to pay a premium for comfort, and this is not a premium everyone can afford. BU needs to ensure students have comfortable places to live so they have a place to relax and unwind. The school must update the older dorms to meet the quality of the newer ones and ensure the prices of all are equal.

Antonia Kladias is an undeclared freshman.

Home is a place filled with memories — some of which I’d rather forget and others I hope I never do. The past now defines home far more than the present. I’m sure we all have different perceptions of home now that many of us are away. However, I’m realizing all the things I took for granted and all the things that are most important to me about home. Before coming to school, I never appreciated the simplicity of my small town, and now when I go home, nothing brings me more joy than doing all the things I considered boring chores before. The comfort of knowing the ins and outs of a place and knowing that a place has shaped you into the person you are is heightened when you come back from an unfamiliar place.

Feeling at home constitutes a sense of belonging and security. People find comfort in the predictability and organization of a home, which is something lacking in a college lifestyle. It’s difficult to keep a consistent routine at college, and I have yet to find a place that makes me feel completely comfortable. I still struggle with being able to relax. 63 percent of college students in the United States reported overwhelming anxiety in a 2018 assessment and, honestly, this isn’t very surprising. I think all of the anxieties I’ve had in the past over schoolwork have worsened since coming to college, because every place on campus is a shared space — making it hard to have a moment for oneself to recharge. This can be especially difficult to adjust to if this is your first time living in close quarters with another person.

It’s very hard to be separated from family and friends at home as you try to figure out who you are without them. It’s scary making new friends and developing into a version of yourself different from who you were in the past. Sometimes I worry I’m betraying my old friends by making new ones, or that my old friends won’t recognize and accept the person I’ve become while here. Despite this, I’ve realized that home is more of a feeling than a place, and that being away from home doesn’t take away from who I am. I’ve finally accepted that I actually have to live in my dorm room, and have found people who I feel comfortable around — people who remind me of being home.

Now that I’ve been away from home for a while, I don’t feel completely “at home” when at home. Seeing your college self in your childhood home or visiting all the places you used to frequent as a completely different person is strange. It’s weird to think about all the things I now consider normal parts of everyday life that the people in my hometown, with whom I used to have so many shared experiences, know nothing about. Being home still brings me so much comfort, but sometimes I feel like I’m intruding in my own hometown. I’ve started to feel bad for missing all the traditions or big events that have happened at home — it’s sort of becoming a weird case of hometown FOMO, or “fear of missing out.”

I didn’t think my perception of home would change as much as it has when I first got to school, but I’m glad it has. It has overwhelmingly made me appreciate where I grew up more, even if it feels weird being back home sometimes. I’ve become grateful for all the people and experiences that have shaped me into who I am.

Antonia Kladias is an undeclared freshman.

Checkout donations create an awkward situation for employees and customers alike. Customers feel pressured to donate their extra cents while employees try their best not to make customers feel uncomfortable or judged. From both sides, this is not a situation anyone enjoys being in, so why do businesses continue this practice? These donations are far from the best form of charity to exist, but they are actually very effective in raising money. These donations also help businesses improve their reputation and earn money because customers feel good about spending money at their stores. A common misconception I often hear is that these donations are used as tax write-offs, but this is actually not true. Companies cannot write off donations that do not come from their own income. But, despite their effectiveness, there might still be more harm than good produced in the long run.

Making monetary donations through businesses make people feel like they are doing something charitable and meeting their “moral quota” when they could do much more. While it is true that these types of donations are accessible and do encourage people who wouldn’t donate otherwise to donate, this alone should not fill people’s quota for good-doing. Directly working with charities and volunteering your time has a far greater impact than the spare change you donate at the register. Donating money through businesses also doesn’t provide people with the same connection to organizations that directly donating or volunteering does. Building a lasting relationship with specific organizations makes the greatest impact on charity organizations because people will return to volunteer their time or continue to make donations. Checkout donations take this possibility away because most of the time people don’t even know where their money is going or the programs it might be supporting.

I work at Panera Bread in my hometown, and when we were doing a “round up” donation campaign, I honestly did not know anything about the organization we were raising money for. The info sheets we were given were vague and unhelpful. When a few customers asked me about it, I had to tell them something generic about education in low-income communities. Even as an employee, I wanted to better understand the programs this money was funding and was embarrassed I couldn’t give customers more information. Knowing where the money is going, even if it is only a few cents, makes a big difference in the long run. If you know where your money is going, you’re more likely to research an issue or organization and that larger understanding causes people to get more involved and work for change. This is why business-led donations are not sustainable forms of charity.

The impulsivity and peer pressure behind these donations contribute to their qualitative effectiveness, but subsequently take away from the sentiment and meaning of charity. Doing good makes people feel good, but these small donations at the cash register give people a false sense of that. People who actively volunteer their time or regularly donate to charity would not feel satisfied with these donations alone. People who use these donations as their only form of charity shouldn’t feel satisfied either. These donations are disconnected from the actual organizations, and do not give people any real insight or experience with what they are supporting. The most rewarding part of charity is seeing the effects of what you contribute, and with these kinds of donations, you rarely get to see them. So, next time you’re asked to “round up” at the register, don’t feel bad about saying no. Instead, find a charity or organization that means something to you and volunteer your time there.

Antonia Kladias is an undeclared freshman.

However, I can understand why this happens. I’ve noticed that even when I don’t have much to contribute to a conversation, I still feel like I should say something so that I’ve participated for the day. When participation is graded in courses that discuss issues regarding race, white students talk over students of color on issues they have no real experience with. In these situations, listening to and engaging in conversations with students of color is more beneficial and rewarding than trying to gain participation points. I don’t think it is fair to expect students of color to represent an entire group or pressure them to participate, so it may also be beneficial if educators encouraged students of color to share their experiences through safe and anonymous discussion posts or forums. This way, educators can present these experiences to the class if the students themselves do not feel comfortable doing so.

Participation points shouldn’t be eliminated completely, as they encourage students to pay attention and value learning. They should go beyond comments made in class to presentations or questions answered individually. An essay or reflective paper can allow educators to see individual students’ understanding of topics and the real connections they are making between the material and their own lives.

Discussion sections have been proven beneficial for this issue, since smaller groups encourage more meaningful and involved conversations. Still, the best thing to do in classes covering issues of race and identity is to implement progressive stacking, “a technique used…to ensure minority voices are heard by allowing members of minority communities to speak before members of majority communities.” Last spring, Professor Ana Maria Candela faced unprecedented backlash and disrespect from students and staff for implementing this practice in her syllabus, and was told by the school that she violated the faculty handbook. A white male student even accused her of violating Title IX. Candela has since resigned from Binghamton University, which makes me question where the priorities of the school lie. Shouldn’t the school prioritize meaningful education and equality over the participation points of a portion of bothered students?

If I have learned anything from studying sociology so far, it is that understanding history and its present consequences is the most important step to recognizing our respective roles in facilitating discrimination and prejudice. White people often feel attacked when people of color begin talking about their oppression or the discrimination they face, which is evident in the counterproductive comments that some white students make in class. If white students paid attention to what their peers of color shared in class instead of worrying about what they should say next, then they would stop pointlessly trying to defend themselves and take away more meaningful lessons from class.

Progressive stacking should be implemented again in classes, especially those pertaining to sociology, but I think this system would work best if participation grades were not based on comments made in lectures. Discussion sections provide smaller groups, conversation that can be more impactful and opportunities for presentations or quizzes, which can contribute to participation points. This way, white students should not be worried that their grades will suffer because of progressive stacking. There will be no obvious incentive to participate in the lecture with this structure, but, even if fewer people participate, the conversation will be more meaningful because people won’t be participating for the sake of participation.

Additionally, if more meaningful conversations take place in lectures, students will likely do better on exams and papers, which are weighed more significantly in their final grades. Educators should also encourage white students to ask their peers of color questions, and comment on things that changed their perspective on an issue or opened their eyes to something they didn’t know before. This could also be done in the form of discussion posts or surveys.

Even though progressive stacking would not affect white students’ grades, I understand the concerns that it would. However, these worries are born out of ignorant defensiveness. Even so, though, academic validation is not everything, and the most important thing is what students take away from classes. When you realize a conversation is not one you need to or can contribute to, step back and try to listen to and learn from those actively affected by an issue because it will only enhance your education and success in a class.

Antonia Kladias is an undeclared freshman.

During a time when infected students are still expected to isolate for around five days, it seems illogical to have extremely limited isolation housing available. This may be due to decreasing urgency surrounding COVID-19, as many professionals have compared COVID-19’s current severity to the flu. However, while COVID-19 is becoming more normalized in our daily lives, we cannot normalize a lack of care for safety precautions and for those infected.

COVID-19 is obviously still affecting our community — as of Oct. 12, 2022, Broome County reported 399 new cases in five days. Ten people in Broome County died from COVID-19 in September. We cannot ignore the need for diligence and competence in preventing the spread of COVID-19, as future outbreaks may require a large volume of students to isolate. Still, the school’s drastic reduction of isolation housing this year certainly does not reflect this prominent need. Last year, BU had 601 beds available in isolation housing, even making accommodations for sick students to stay at local hotels. The “isolation” page on BU’s “Fall ‘22 Guidance” website advises students to isolate at home, within their normal residential hall room, or at a friend’s house off-campus. The school also appears to have no desire to make any changes or meet the need for more isolation housing, with the Fall ‘22 Guidance page stating, “Should the need expand beyond available beds, students will be strongly encouraged to return home for their isolation period, or, if that is not possible, will be required to isolate in place where they reside on campus”

The isolation meal plan for students staying in their rooms was disappointing and subpar. Students had to place pickup orders a day ahead of time and go to the Appalachian Collegiate Center to pick them up. The school even suggested students order food from delivery services like DoorDash, with no mention of compensation for the extra expense this would create. For many students, these options were unrealistic, so resident assistants (RAs) took it upon themselves to start their own student-run meal delivery service for isolating students. This is something that the school should be responsible for, not students.

It is hard to believe that the school expected students to order so far ahead of time and walk the distance to the dining hall while sick. It was also challenging to rely on others to bring meals to your dorm. I felt like I was burdening those around me by asking them to bring me food and risk their health even after only one day of isolation in my dorm. During the spring semester of 2021, the College-in-the-Woods Dining Center was closed on weekends to prepare isolation meals, and students isolating during their birthdays even got a cupcake and a phone call from President Harvey Stenger. In response to an outbreak that spring, meals were delivered directly to students and the school established a meal hotline for newly quarantined students who did not have the chance to order their meals ahead of time. It is surprising that such an effort was made previously in the face of rising COVID-19 cases when so little has been done this year.

The school has supplied little information on what to do when infected, and their lack of consideration of students’ circumstances is startling compared to the past. Not everyone has people around them that can bring them food, and not everyone has the option of going home. If the school still expects students to isolate when they are infected with COVID-19, they must implement practices that accommodate students’ circumstances. The school should expand isolation housing and give students more options than just going home if they get sick. If more housing is not possible, a restructured isolation meal system that relieves responsibility from students should be implemented. The school’s diligent past responses to COVID-19 show what the school can do for students who get sick. The need for this diligence has not changed, but the school’s consideration and care for infected students certainly has. We all want to put COVID-19 behind us, but an effort has to be made to ensure we are taking the right measures to do so. Moving forward with negligence will only create more problems and set us back in the long run.

Antonia Kladias is an undeclared freshman.