The participation of college students in the democratic process is imperative. Not only will the local representatives they elect affect their lives while attending college, but those same officials will likely influence the first stages of their adult life after higher education as well. Students attending colleges in-state are free to vote for candidates who most directly affect their campus communities, but out-of-state students do not always have this luxury. In the state of Georgia, out-of-state students have the option to either stay registered to vote in their home state or register to vote in Georgia using their public college ID. This provides these students a opportunity to receive proper democratic representation in the local and state governments. There are several obstacles, however, that out-of-state students in Georgia must overcome to achieve this representation. Out-of-state students who attend college in Georgia, including University of Georgia students, have a harder time achieving proper democratic representation than in-state students because of the issues they face with voter registration, such as inadequate civic education, confusing laws, and lack of motivation.

Most Georgia college students have a chance to vote for officials representing their campus communities but insufficient civic education leads to ignorance of this opportunity. Out-of-state students may not realize they are able to change where they are registered, which is a problem perpetuated by the University of Georgia’s civic engagement website page. On this page, it states that one can use an ID from a public Georgia university to vote, but it never explicitly mentions that this option works for out-of-state students who wish to change where they are registered. Buried amongst facts about valid Georgia driver licenses, it is easy for students to misunderstand this option as only being for in-state students. The only section of the page that refers to registering out-of-state takes the user to a separate, more confusing page of Democracy Works Elections Data. This page also does not provide any specific information on how to register, opting to only inform the reader of how the organization’s other website pages can help without any hyperlinks or directions. This lack of knowledge may be a factor in why few out-of-state students are registered in their campus state. In a study conducted by Tufts University, researchers found that 23% of out-of-state students are registered to vote in Georgia. With so few out-of-state students registered and no clear instruction on how to register in one’s campus state, out-of-state students in Georgia face the hindrance of learning they can change their registration location to begin with.

Beyond the University of Georgia, out-of-state students who attend private colleges in Georgia are not even allowed to register to vote in the state. According to the Secretary of State’s Georgia Voter Identification Requirements, only a student ID from a public Georgia college or university is valid due to a 2006 voter ID law. This issue not only denies out-of-state students at Georgia private colleges the right to democratic representation, but it specifically burdens out-of-state students of color. Seven out of 10 historical black colleges and universities in Georgia are private, meaning many Black out-of-state students are disenfranchised at the polls. Even out-of-state students at other private popular schools, such as Emory or Mercer University, face this problem. This oversight on valid voting IDs results in out-of-state students having to make the unfair decision to sacrifice their right to democratic representation in exchange for a higher education in Georgia. 

On a psychological level, out-of-state students tend to feel less of an incentive to register. The aforementioned Tufts University study found that out-of-state students are simply less motivated to vote. This could be for a number of reasons. Some students may not want to go through the work of registering again when they are already registered in their home state. Some may feel their vote is not needed in their campus state, especially if that state tends to be led by one political party. On the flip side, if their home state is a battleground state in elections, they may decide it is more important to stay registered there, even if it means giving up their elective power in their campus state. Georgia’s current political climate makes this situation more complex. Historically, Georgia has tended to lean Republican for both state and national elections. Out-of-state votes are more crucial than ever in influencing Georgia’s elections, but that puts out-of-state students in the tough position of deciding in which state they want their vote to matter. Out-of-state students spend around eight months out of the year living under their campus state’s government. Yet, many of those students’ electoral power to choose candidates that best represent their wants and values is deprived, either through deficient civic knowledge, tangible ID requirements or mental obstacles. With one of the most crucial election periods on the horizon, this must change. In the past, movements such as VoteRiders have sent knowledgeable activists to college campuses in Georgia to help students with registration. Out-of-state students especially should seek out these volunteers if they come to campus. The University of Georgia must also take on some responsibility and do a better job of making it clear to out-of-state students that they can register to vote in the state and provide resources to help them do so. If you are an in-state student who has registered before, offer to help an out-of-state peer with the process. They deserve democratic representation just as much as in-state students.

Photo Credit: https://www.pexels.com/photo/stickers-with-i-voted-inscription-and-flag-of-usa-1550339/

“Defcon 3 on all Jewish people.” 

“Jews . . . blackball anyone who opposes [their] agenda.” 

The “Jewish underground media mafia . . . started attacking.” 

Remarkably, these words are not taken from a Nazi propaganda poster, nor from a Mel Gibson movie. Rather these are the recent comments of prolific pop star and supposed civil rights activist, Kanye West.

This type of behavior is not entirely unexpected from West, who has a track record of controversy and presumably suffers from untreated mental illness. Such a history allows many people to brush off these comments, reasoning that “Kanye says crazy stuff’” and that no one genuinely believes what he says. After all, it seems easy enough to discount comments from someone who remarked that “slavery . . . sounds like a choice.”  

However, West’s sentiments are not as atypical as people would like to believe. A study by the Anti-Defamation League found that 15% of Americans agree that Jews have too much power in the business world and 17% agree that the movie and television industries are run by Jews. At the University of Georgia itself, the message “Kanye West was right about the Jews” was projected outside a recent football game. Moreover, Neo-Nazi groups like Patriot Front have magnified their presence on campus, with little pushback from students or administration. 

Thus, West’s comments are representative of a broader increase in anti-semitism accross the United States. When anti-semitism exceeds a certain threshold, “the world has a rallying cry to go against Jewish populations,” says Jeremy Lichtig, Campus Director of Hillel of UGA. Clearly, then, these comments are not to be taken lightly. 

Luckily, UGA campus leaders are already taking action to ensure Jews can feel safe on campus. For instance, many campus leaders are collaborating with local law enforcement to ensure Jews can feel safer on campus. Lichtig reassures, “[the police] have it on their radar; increased patrols by all of the Jewish houses have been instituted.”  

While such action is certainly promising, it is also important that we address anti-semitism at its roots—a process that begins with dialogue. Lichtig proposes that “different religious, cultural, and student groups should come together in guided conversations.” According to a study done by Pew Research Center, 39% of Americans say they have never even met a Jewish person. Furthermore, on campus, only 3% of UGA students are Jewish, so it is safe to say that the average student may not know many Jewish people or understand Jewish culture. Facilitated dialogue, then, whether at university sponsored events or within extracurricular organizations, would help dispel some of these harmful anti-semitic stereotypes and, ultimately, curb the recent spread of hatred on campus.

In addition to hosting guided conversations, UGA leaders should publicly denounce West’s comments and any ensuing hate speech. Adam Strater, who received his PhD in Jewish History at Emory University, noted that “over the last three or four years, we’ve seen an uptick in anti-semitism” and reasoned that  “part of this is because people in authority are failing to use their authority to say anti-semitism is bad.” 

Another measure that can be taken to combat anti-semitism is for the University System of Georgia (USG) to approve the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism. This definition was actually unanimously passed by UGA’s Student Government Association in 2021 but has yet to be approved by USG. With anti-semitism growing so rapidly, there is no better time for the administration to stand in solidarity with its Jewish community. Moreover, if the university were to adopt the IHRA definition, there would be more clarity as to what constitutes an anti-semitic act on campus, thus holding students more accountable.  

Although Kanye West worsened an already pressing issue, it is promising that there are potential solutions on campus that will help turn the tide against anti-semitism’s rampant growth. As Strater puts it, “the change starts here at smaller communities like UGA. When we raise up small communities, we raise up the whole world.”

Early in the summer of 2015, the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) suspended a student after he was found guilty of sexual assault by a university panel. The panel came to this conclusion after careful consideration of the testimony of numerous witnesses and the findings of an investigation conducted by the university’s Office for Prevention of Harassment & Discrimination (OPHD). University officials believed that the situation was settled.  After all, they had acted quickly and efficiently, handling the allegations in accordance with Title IX requirements. But the student, referenced in court documents as John Doe, sued the university for violating his right to due process. He claimed that during his expulsion hearing, the university failed to adhere to procedural standards that would ensure he had a fair chance to defend himself. John Doe won.

In his verdict, Judge Joel Pressman denoted a number of legal mistakes committed by the university. For instance, Doe did not have the “right to confront” witnesses against him. In other words, he was unable to cross-examine his accuser and the OPHD investigator. He was allowed to submit questions for his accuser to the head of the panel; however, the panel chair omitted twenty-four out of his thirty-three questions and rephrased the rest. Pressman also noted that the OPHD investigator came into the case having already drawn a conclusion regarding Doe’s guilt. He argued that the panel, established to determine the innocence or guilt of Doe for themselves, may have simply yielded to the investigator’s conclusion, essentially presuming his guilt before fully evaluating all of the relevant evidence. Pressman stated that this was even more plausible given that Doe was not allowed to review the findings of the investigation or question the investigator. As a result of these violations of Doe’s due process rights, the judge mandated that UCSD reinstate him as a student.

There are many more John Does who have gone or are currently going through the legal system because of violations of their due process rights on college campuses. At George Mason University, a student challenged his suspension for sexual assault upon learning that the university had made the decision to suspend him after considering other charges against him, charges of which he had not been notified. At Brandeis University, a judge refused to dismiss an accused student’s complaint that the university did not adhere to “basic fairness” in its investigation of him. Among his complaints were failure to provide detailed statements of the accusations against him, denial of his right to an attorney, and refusal to allow him to cross-examine witnesses. At the University of Wisconsin at Madison, a football player accused of rape is hoping to delay a university hearing about his case because he fears that he may be forced to incriminate himself before his criminal trial.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution establish the precedent for due process under the law. These amendments ensure that no citizen will be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without adherence to stringent legal procedures. The Fifth Amendment secures due process during criminal trials. The Fourteenth Amendment applies due process to state governments and expands it to include all instances in which a citizen could lose some right or privilege. It also requires that public colleges and universities respect due process.

Over the last decade, this has become increasingly difficult. In 2011, the Department of Education sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter to over four thousand colleges and universities detailing significant reforms that would seek to prevent instances of sexual crimes from occurring on campuses and ensure that victims of such crimes receive justice. However, many of these policies test the boundary between legitimate protection of victims of sexual misconduct and violation of the due process rights of the accused. For instance, the new policy mandated that schools use the “preponderance of evidence” standard for determining guilt, meaning that accused persons would be found guilty if there is a greater than fifty percent chance that they committed the crime. This federal educational standard contrasts with many colleges’ previous, more stringent “clear and convincing evidence” standard and criminal courts’ “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. Additionally, the Department of Education imposed restrictions on the ability of the accused to cross-examine victims and witnesses. After releasing the letter, the Department increasingly advocated for a single investigator to examine evidence, hear witness testimony, and decide the outcome of each case instead of granting decision-making power to an independent committee. These policies and suggestions have been implemented as Title IX regulations, meaning that public colleges and universities must comply or risk losing federal funding.

While these and other measures seek to assist victims of sexual assault, their consequences for due process on college campuses are problematic. In 2017, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted an investigation into the due process policies of the top fifty-three American universities. FIRE found that only fourteen institutions guaranteed a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, only twenty-one allowed the accused to cross-examine witnesses, and only three gave the accused the right to an attorney. Less than half required impartial fact-finders, and many did not provide clear-cut guarantees that accused students would receive adequate notice of accusations, sufficient preparation time before hearings, and access to evidence being used against them.

Undoubtedly, the intentions behind policies which limit due process are noble, seeking to protect victims of sexual misconduct and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. But as colleges continue to violate students’ rights, they risk encountering potential perpetrators back on campus after lengthy, expensive lawsuits. Furthermore, due process protections seem popular among college students. A 2018 FIRE survey found that 98 percent of college students support due process on campus, although the percentage supporting due process decreases slightly when the question specifically relates to sexual misconduct.

In an attempt to restore due process rights, the administration of President Donald Trump has rolled back some of the policies stipulated in the “Dear Colleague” letter, such as the mandate that schools use the “preponderance of evidence” standard of proof. But in light of the #MeToo movement and resistance from college administrators and students, it seems likely that the John Does of America will continue to rely on the courts to uphold their due process rights.

This article was originally published in GPR’s Fall 2017 Magazine

Meddling in elections is increasingly commonplace in the United States. From super PACs and the meteoric rise in spending on behalf of political candidates, to allegations of foreign interference in the most recent presidential race, Americans are no strangers to outside influence on the ballot box. But the pressure reaches deeper than races for federal, state, or local office, to a sphere rarely considered by the public or media: university student government elections.

Within the past five years, various non-profit organizations have embarked upon buying or otherwise influencing the election of student government officials at colleges around the country. A natural progression of the great American elections-spending arms race, the targeting of student government elections is a new component in the political strategy of building coalitions within local government and grassroots movements to supplement power in Washington, a strategy commonly employed by both major parties as well as national advocacy groups.

This trend enjoyed scant attention for years. Now students are starting to pay attention.

A Political Turning Point

The political 501(c)(3) non-profit organization holds special status in the United States tax code. Because they are restricted from directly supporting political candidates, these groups are granted tax exemptions and a large degree of autonomy in their financial operations. A small army of these politically inclined non-profit organizations dots political centers around the country, ranging from powerful think tanks like the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Heritage Foundation to single-issue advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the group that led the push for the current national drinking age of 21.

A number of these organizations have arms dedicated to younger generations or university students, such as CAP’s Generation Progress unit or the Campus Action Network of the National Organization for Women. Many of these national groups have spawned student club chapters at universities around the country, using this vast network to champion their issues to students and recruit them for the group’s efforts.

One such group is Turning Point USA, a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2012 by rising political star Charlie Kirk in order to help students “promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government.” The group boasts a student organization or other form of presence at over 1,000 schools around the United States, including the University of Georgia.

The group gained national notoriety for its Professor Watchlist, an online database of professors reported to “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” While provocative, the group certainly is not unique. Many universities boast overtly political groups such as the College Republicans and Young Democrats, and there are a host of left-leaning 501(c)(3) organizations famous for their activism on college campuses, such as Move On and — likely familiar to UGA students — the group Athens For Everyone.

The difference between Turning Point USA and its counterparts on both the ideological right and left is strictly one of strategy. As of now, Turning Point and its partner, the Campus Leadership Project, are the only groups publicly known to target student government elections to advance their efforts.

On The Offensive

“It might seem like kind of a silly thing to try to take over student government associations,” Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk conceded during a 2015 speech to a right-wing political group called the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC). Yet in reality the strategy is far from naive.

The voice of the student body at most schools, student government often wields significant influence on university administration as well as state and local policy. Occasionally their budgets sit in the range of millions of student fee dollars. In many states, the ranks of the political elite swell with veterans of student government, especially from flagship institutions. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Nixon all trace their roots to bids for the student body presidency at their respective colleges.

There is real power to be found in university student government, and Kirk believes he has found a way in. “The only vulnerability there is, the only little opening,” Kirk explained to the DHFC, “is student-government-association races and elections, and we’re investing a lot of time and energy and money in it.”

So what does this “time and energy and money” look like in practice? The evidence is murky and incomplete, due largely to the national organization’s tight-lipped policy. But various university newspapers around the country have uncovered bits and pieces.

Occasionally it constitutes direct monetary aid. Two years ago, the president of the University of Maryland College Republicans sent a message through his group’s listserv advertising an enticing opportunity: “Anyone who wants to run for SGA president, Turning Point is offering to pay thousands of dollars (literally) to your campaign to help get a conservative into the position.” This past year at Ohio State University, leaked text messages between a Turning Point representative and student candidates disclosed nearly $6000 in offered financial support.

While that amount of money may seem inconsequential when compared to the nearly $2.4 billion spent on the 2016 presidential race alone, it can make a big difference at the collegiate level. Most universities set a spending cap for student government candidates at a few thousand dollars, so Turning Point assistance can quite literally double or triple a campaign budget. “You would be amazed,” Kirk gushed to the DHFC, hinting at this leverage. “You spend $5,000 on a race, you can win. You could retake a whole college or university.”

Other times, this aid takes the form of non-monetary support. Turning Point reportedly employs teams who “wake up every single day, just as if you’re running a congressional or mayoral race or senate race, trying to develop messaging, fliers, banners, Twitter profiles” for candidates, according to Kirk. Occasionally, bits of this aid go public. At the University of Maryland, the student newspaper “The Diamondback” reported that this past year’s Unity Party received undisclosed logo designs from a Turning Point designer.

Some candidates have even been offered physical manpower. Leaked messages between a Turning Point representative and an Ohio State student discussed sending “a bunch of people with tablets making people vote and everything” on voting day, at no cost to the candidate — “they’ll pay those people too.”

In The Dark

Many of the mammoth private groups that spend on national elections, from various cheerily named super PACs to the Koch brothers, are widely known. Yet this notoriety usually comes despite their best efforts.

Groups that attempt to sway votes with dollars generally prefer to operate in secret, and this is certainly true for Turning Point. Their effort to influence student body elections is a “rather undercover, underground operation,” founder Charlie Kirk explained.

This choice is for good reason. At schools where their efforts to sway elections are made public, the Turning-Point-backed ticket or candidate tends to lose. The entire Unity Party at the University of Maryland withdrew from the race after the source of those logo designs was revealed. At Ohio State, candidates with allegations of Turning Point ties dropped out a few days before the election following a student media firestorm. Last year’s One Oregon ticket at the University of Oregon lost what promised to be a successful elections bid after evidence of Turning Point aid surfaced to the student body. (There is no evidence that a candidate backed by Turning Point has successfully completed a bid for student government at the University of Georgia.)

Yet in many cases, especially when undiscovered, the operation seems to achieve rather marked success.

When a victorious presidential candidate at the University of Colorado was kicked out after the discovery of undisclosed Turning Point funding, a prominent conservative lawyer filed a flurry of legal action which resulted in a decision by the U.C. chancellor to reinstate the candidate as the victor. The attorney refused to release the source of his funding.

This past January, an email leaked from a candidate at Rice University who sought assistance from the Campus Leadership Project, a Turning Point partner, in their school’s elections. The leak exposed a sobering statistic: “Last year, [Turning Point USA] candidates won 26 of 30 universities, so the odds are in our favor.”

A Broader Movement

The sudden rise in outside spending on student government races did not occur in a vacuum. The United States has been grappling with seismic shifts in the elections-funding landscape for nearly a decade.

In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in the case Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission that blew the door open for unlimited elections spending by corporations. The ruling followed a controversial concept in jurisprudence: just as human beings are protected by the Constitution from federal restrictions on their freedom of political speech (dollar-speech included), so are corporations.

Super PACs, once a fringe element of American elections, owe their modern prominence almost entirely to the Citizens United decision. But in the world of nonprofits, that ruling applies solely to 501(c)(4) organizations such as PACs, which are not barred from spending on behalf of political candidates and thus are not granted the same tax-exempt status as 501(c)(3) groups.

Turning Point USA is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization. While the rapid expansion of its targeting of student government elections cannot be traced to the Supreme Court as directly as the Political Action Committee, the very concept of Turning Point’s strategy stems from the consequences of that case.

Its classification as a 501(c)(3) should, in theory, prevent Turning Point from contributing financially to candidates for student government. But there is a notable caveat. IRS restrictions on 501(c)(3) contributions to political candidates concern only those running for public office. As of now, the legal world does not classify student government representatives as public officials, an exception cited in leaked messages from a Turning Point representative to a student at Ohio State: “[Our support is] totally legal and everything, because it’s a student government campaign, it’s not like Congress or the president.”

With all the controversy surrounding the onslaught of moneyed interests in university elections, however, it’s possible that the legal definitions here may change in the future — especially for student government officials at public, state-funded universities.

The political landscape at universities is facing drastic change as well, as controversial issues once again encroach on campuses around the country. The police shooting of Michael Brown in St. Louis prompted protests at the University of Missouri which led to the ouster of leading school officials and an enrollment crisis at Mizzou that lingers today. The alt-right movement led by Richard Spencer in Charlottesville, VA, and the resulting death of a counter-protester have rocked the University of Virginia to its core.

As Mr. Spencer and other alt-right speakers amp up their national college tours, protests — and student arrests – have been sparked around the country in response. And the federal government has now waded into the fray, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recent promise to back lawsuits against schools that have banned Mr. Spencer and other speakers from appearing on their campuses.

Spending on student government elections and controversial university speech are distinct yet pivotal factors in the undeniable, forceful return of politics to college campuses around the country. The best thing students can do in response to the turmoil is to pay attention. A watchful eye, an open mind, and concerned participation in university life can go a long way in diffusing the political tension pressuring students at our nation’s colleges. Now more than ever, it is critical that students affirm their commitment to their schools, and to each other.

This article was originally published in GPR’s Spring 2017 Magazine

The intersection of Washington and Hull streets in downtown Athens seems to many to be just another corner with its own set of bars and restaurants. Though many students proclaim themselves to be true Athenians, few know about the prolific history of this intersection and the impact it continues to have on the city. This spot is the epicenter for the “Hot Corner,” a community of historically black businesses and a cultural hub for Athens’ black residents. The Hot Corner’s history has reflected the changing social landscape of Athens since the 19th century, and today plays a very unique role in promoting an atmosphere of diversity and entrepreneurship in the Classic City.

The Hot Corner is a place in Athens where black businesses have traditionally thrived. It is geographically centered at the intersection of Hull and Washington Streets, but its total area really stretches all the way from Lumpkin St. to Milledge Ave.; this space incorporates all of the land where many black businesspeople have owned real estate and started companies. For Athens residents, especially during the mid-20th century, the Hot Corner was not only a business center but also a community space where they could come to socialize and shop in a welcoming setting. The Hot Corner has been the location of 66 catalogued black-owned businesses, and has been an important site for the achievements of black professionals in Georgia.

The Hot Corner has a long and prosperous history in the Classic City. While it has no official beginning, many consider it to have started in the late 19th century. Its beginnings likely coincided with the founding of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1866, which began as a congregation of freed slaves. The group purchased land and had their church built in 1916. This building still stands on N. Hull St, and is a historic black landmark in Athens.

By the time the church was built, another landmark of the Hot Corner had also been established: the Morton Building. The history of the Morton reflects the economic opportunity that the Hot Corner provided for black Athenians during the first half of the 20th century, when segregation was a social norm across the South. In 1910, Monroe B. “Pink” Morton opened the building as both a theatre and an office complex. The building presented a place where black professionals could start their businesses and lease from a black property owner. The Morton has housed a plethora of important local businesses including: the Ellington D. Harris Drug Company, Athens’ first black-owned drug store; the practice of Dr. Ida Mae Hiram, Georgia’s first licensed black female dentist; and the practice of Dr. Blanche Thompson, the first African-American surgeon in Athens. Most locals today know the building for the theatre, which is the oldest African-American owned and built theatre in the United States.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the Hot Corner played an intrinsic role in the Athens community. According to Mr. Homer Wilson, who runs Wilson’s Styling Shop on N. Hull Street, this thirty-year period was the peak of the Hot Corner’s economic draw. Businesses from all over the state would vie to open up shop on the Hot Corner, and shoppers would go there for the diverse array of stores, services, and products that could be found. It was in downtown Athens that many civil rights demonstrations took place, and many businesses at the intersection of Washington and Hull were important to the cause. Businesses like Mr. Wilson’s shop hosted meetings where local ministers and politicians could plan their campaigns, and provided a place where activists could come to rest and find refreshments during protests.

After the Civil Rights Era, the economic weight that the Hot Corner held in Athens began a slow decline as racial integration took hold across the city. Many black businesses that had originally opened downtown moved out into other areas of Athens. A few of the core buildings at the Hot Corner were torn down, such as the Samaritan Building and Union Hall. More white-owned businesses also began moving in, changing the culture of the area. Today, the culture of west downtown Athens looks quite different than it did 50 years ago. The Hot Corner is now a mix of historically black businesses, like the Morton and Wilson’s Styling Shop, as well as white-owned businesses that cater to more of a student crowd.

In 1999, Mr. Wilson started the Hot Corner Association, which works to promote the history of black entrepreneurship in Athens. The association is comprised of black business owners from Athens, whose companies make up the Hot Corner, and also individuals who are passionate about the history. Every year, the association puts on a weekend-long festival in early June called the Hot Corner Festival, with the goal of keeping alive the spirit of diversity that the Hot Corner has always contributed to Athens. The festival features attractions such as a barbeque competition, a vintage car show, and a concert series comprised of musically diverse acts. Mr. Wilson and the association are now playing a vital role in providing a place where everyone can celebrate the contributions that black Athenians have made to the city, and in keeping the intersection of Washington and Hull a welcoming place for everyone.

The Hot Corner has left an immeasurable impact on the city of Athens, one that many people in the community fail to realize. It provided a much-needed cultural haven for black Athenians for over 100 years, where people could come to shop, socialize, and support their families. It has also been a place where residents could demonstrate their stake in the community and use their influence to push for more rights and protections for the diverse population of the city. Ultimately, the legacy of the Hot Corner is one of empowerment.

This piece was composed with help from Mr. Homer Wilson, who kindly provided information about the history of the Hot Corner.

By Seamus Murrock

Accompanying TEDxUGA’s impressive shift from Tate Grand Hall in 2016 to the larger, more grandiose Classic Center Theatre this past Friday was a subtler shift in tone from years’ past. Following a 2016 election cycle that was described as one of the most divisive in American history by everyone from the Boston Globe to stockinvestor.com, organizers from the University’s New Media Institute, Alumni Association, and several other organizations chose a more unifying and exploratory theme for this year’s showcase. Spectrum, the 2017 installment of the annual TEDxUGA event, was designed to “challenge us, change us, and help us to see the world differently than before.”

From mid- to late-afternoon, guests received three doses of “ideas worth spreading” across a broad range of topics and mediums, including the dangers of non-native species to our ecosystems, the power of a genuine compliment, and the importance of prudent financial planning in strengthening families and communities across the country. While the event’s diverse range of speakers and performers included such lighthearted acts as two dance teams, a stand-up comedian, and even UGA’s Homecoming King, some presenters chose to bring a metaphorical elephant into the room with them by choosing topics that veered into the jurisdiction of our toxic political climate.

Dr. Leah Carmichael, a professor in the School of Public and International Affairs, opened the event with a sobering image of worldwide food insecurity, particularly in the Middle East. In her talk, she described how violations of international law go largely ignored by the policy community, but are felt intensely by the most vulnerable of those around us. While food insecurity in the United States has been diminished by local organizations and economic empowerment, children in Syria and other war-torn countries are less fortunate.

As the new administration in the U.S. seeks to limit its outreach around the world and cut back on foreign aid and instead focus on internal issues, Dr. Carmichael stressed the importance of continuing to reach out to those around the world who rely on our support. “Call your congressmen, donate, and, most importantly, just be aware of other’s issues around the world,” she said. “International is not just general anymore. We all have the same problems and can no longer afford to overlook others just because they may be far from us.”

Dr. Valerie Babb, a Franklin College Professor of English and the director of the Institute for African-American Studies, chose to lecture the audience on the topic of narratives of fear in the U.S. and how these fallacies can whittle away at our American ideals. Since the early days of our nation, she explained, the majority groups have always sought to instill an “us vs. them” mantra into our collective psyche in order to retain power. “The ‘them’ changes over time based on the needs of society,” she said. “From the Chinese to Irish to Blacks, it’s just a means to justify unfair treatment of certain minority groups.” Although significant progress has been made, particularly throughout the last century, the nation still has a long way to go before we can thwart these narratives once and for all.

When asked if she feels like the country is moving in the right direction regarding bigotry and false narratives after the show, Dr. Babb seemed less optimistic than she did on stage just moments earlier. “During the last administration, I believed we were taking the right steps, even if they were just small steps, forward. Now a new contingency comes in and takes us eight steps backward,” she said. Indeed, the unsuccessful travel ban of citizens from eight Muslim-majority countries to the U.S., as well as the appointment of Stephen K. Bannon, whose website Breitbart News often peddles anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic rhetoric, to White House Chief Strategist, has done little to diminish the narratives of fear exploited by many cable news outlets. Now, immigrants around the country, from Arkansas to New York to Los Angeles, report feeling fear and abandonment in a country many risked their lives to come to.

The aforementioned elephant in the room, however, was never larger than when Dr. W. Keith Campbell, a professor in Franklin College’s Department of Psychology, took the stage to explore the complicated intricacies of one of psychology’s most common diagnoses: narcissistic personality disorder. While he spoke abstractly yet passionately about narcissistic personality disorder and the feelings of grandiosity, jealousy, and arrogance that characterize its victims, many in the audience couldn’t help but think of the new 45^th President, the one with the self-proclaimed “very good brain” whose “I.Q. is one of the highest.” (Sorry losers and haters!) Although he has been cited extensively by outlets like The Atlantic for his critiques of President Trump and his narcissistic tendencies, Dr. Campbell used his platform at TEDxUGA for primarily educational purposes.

Since the end of the vitriolic 2016 election cycle, many Americans have become more acutely aware of our political climate, and this new civic enthusiasm has manifested itself in a variety of ways. At Spectrum, this year’s annual TEDxUGA showcase, many presenters harnessed this engagement, and did their best to share their ideas worth spreading.

By Rob Oldham

Open your eyes next time you are north of Broad Street on a Thursday evening. Watch as sweaty Greeks stumble from their socials, nervous freshmen fidget with their fake IDs, and newly-minted binge drinkers hold in their vomit until the next trashcan appears. Under the watchful eyes of homeless panhandlers and hopeless preachers, UGA students are celebrating another successful night downtown, a rite-of-passage that, for better or worse, is ingrained in our university’s culture. Downtown Athens has over 120 establishments that serve alcohol, and “going out” is one of the defining features of the UGA experience. But the students at the bars are much different than the ones on campus. Although it might be difficult for the average bar-goer to pick up on, a sober observer will see that the students who go downtown are disproportionately white.

When Kenny Cochran first came to UGA, older black students told him that “downtown isn’t really the place for us.” Cochran, a senior from Atlanta studying finance and marketing, saw what they meant when he and one of his black friends were turned down from Jerzees Sportsbar for violating the dress code. Cochran had a hood attached to his jacket and his friend was wearing tennis shoes. Later, Cochran saw another one of his black friends turned down by a Silver Dollar bouncer who thought his ID was fake. After Cochran’s friend had the police verify that the ID was legitimate, the bouncer followed him into the bar and forced him to leave.

“The racism is real,” said former UGA student Gary McWhorter. Bouncers target black students (and black people in general) through selective enforcement of dress codes. These codes often single out clothing popular in black culture such as Nike’s Jordan brand sneakers. Bouncers also exclude black patrons by falsely claiming that bars are hosting private events and by enforcing fake ID rules more stringently for blacks. UGA’s Student Government Association (SGA) collected 50 anonymous testimonials last year in which students spoke freely about instances when they had been discriminated against. Most of the accounts were from black students denied entry into bars due to dress codes.

Bars discriminate for a variety of reasons. Athens local Anthony Huff says that it is due to assumptions about class. Bouncers use race and attire to gauge how much money someone will spend inside the bars. This is particularly directed at black locals like Huff who are broadly categorized as “troublemakers.” But black students face similar obstacles. This is partially due to the stereotype that minorities do not drink as much as whites or tip as generously. Bars also try to cater to their target audience (usually white students) and make decisions based on who they think will fit in socially with the majority of bar patrons. UGA’s Greek Life is prominent in much of the downtown scene and, because it is historically white, bars try to be accommodating to that audience, often at the expense of minorities.

Black students have responded to the alleged discrimination by largely ignoring the bar scene. Aja Muray and Jasmine Goolsby are two black students who go downtown occasionally. But they say their behavior is not common among black students at UGA. The black community more often arranges private house parties or kick-backs, where black students may feel more accepted than in downtown.

Addressing bar discrimination is difficult though. For one thing, it is highly uncertain whether Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which generally bans discrimination in places of public accommodation, applies to bars. It lists “restaurants” as a place of public accommodation, but limits the definition to those “principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises.” Several federal courts have ruled in favor of bar owners being sued for discrimination precisely because of this definition. Racial discrimination cannot be addressed at the state level either because Georgia is one of the few states without codified civil rights protections.

Because of the federal and state limitations, a local ordinance would be most palatable. Acting in response to an incident at General Beauregard’s, where an alcoholic beverage was named after a racial slur, the 2015-2016 SGA Cabinet recommended that the Athens-Clarke County Commission pass a nondiscrimination ordinance. County Attorney Bill Berryman drew up a proposal that would make violations of federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws grounds for the suspension of a liquor license and would also require bars to post their dress codes outside and keep records of private events. Mayor Nancy Denson agreed to discuss the proposal at the Commission’s September 2016 meeting, but then removed it from the agenda due to opposition within the commission. Mayor Denson says that she does not know when, or if, the ordinance will be brought forward again.

Much of the opposition to the current proposal comes from those who do not think the ordinance goes far enough. Progressives say its coverage is too narrow as it would only apply to businesses that make more than 50 percent of their revenue from alcohol. They also want to establish a civil rights commission that could collect data on discrimination in Athens and make recommendations on how to address it. Former SGA Senator Andrew Roberts, a leading advocate for addressing downtown discrimination, worries that the ordinance might be toothless if it only punishes violations of existing anti-discrimination law, because, as noted, Title II may not cover bars and Georgia law does not cover race.

The ordinance also fails to protect members of the LGBT community, who are not covered by anti-discrimination law at the federal or state level. LGBT students were also included in the SGA’s collection of testimonials, with one saying he was denied at Double Barrel when the bouncer said “we don’t let fags in here.” Former SGA Director of Policy Dustin Sammons, another advocate for ending bar discrimination, says that he hopes the ordinance will “bring protections in Athens to make up for gaps in federal and state law.”

Cochran has a different idea about how to address discrimination. He wants bars to change their business models to be more inclusive. He says they should hire more minorities, welcome athletes (which will draw in more black students), and begin serving food to address the belief of many bar owners that minorities do not buy alcohol. He thinks these solutions will create a natural environment for diverse groups of people to connect.

In general, Cochran worries about the implications of a racially homogeneous downtown scene because there are already too few opportunities for cross-cultural interaction at UGA. His concerns fit into the larger picture of segregation in the United States. Americans are increasingly moving to areas where people look and think like them, a phenomenon known as “The Big Sort.” Colleges are supposed to hedge against this uniformity of race and thought, but they often fail to do so. Historically white fraternities and sororities are commonly criticized for promoting race and class-based segregation. California State University recently faced pushback for creating a dorm that is “black-themed,” although it encourages anyone who is interested in black culture to live there.

UGA is 75 percent white, but the enrollment of minority students is increasing each year. If not addressed, racial and ethnic isolation will diminish the ability of students to interact with an increasingly diverse community and escape their cultural comfort zones. When asked whether integrating downtown Athens— better known for its debauchery than its social healing powers— is the solution to bridging the racial gap at UGA, Cochran responded: “Downtown could be a solution.” Then he started laughing. “But I definitely wouldn’t put all of my eggs in that basket.”

By Caskey Dyer

This article originally appeared as the cover story of the Spring 2016 GPR Magazine.

My roommate and I walked through the doors of the Standard as the sun was setting. The manager agreed to us taking pictures, and passed us off to one of the student employees for a tour. We were led through a five-star common room; a rec room with pool tables and a flat-screen; a golf simulator; and an enclosed courtyard with two grills, a fountain, and fake grass. Students usually get this tour with their parents in tow – lacking those, my roommate and I probably received less schmooze.

Despite its name, the Standard’s design screams exceptionality, particularly when contrasted with the average Athens household. On a larger scale, the name becomes less of an oxymoron: “Standards” exist at the Universities of Florida, Appalachian State, Tennessee, Baton Rouge, and California-Berkeley. They’re operated by Landmark Properties, the real estate firm that also manages “the Retreat” northeast of downtown (“Retreats,” ironically, exist across the entire country). Landmark does not, however, own the Standard. They sold to the American Campus Corporation, one of three large Real Estate Investment Trusts (or REITs) that dominate the market on upscale student housing. REITS are like mutual funds – they own or finance real estate that generates income for shareholders. The boom in luxury student housing really began about twenty years ago. Now, these projects are listed on some of the biggest balance sheets in the country – investment firm giants like the Vanguard Group are their top owners.

At the Standard, the employee led us to the rooftop infinity pool. Sunlight bathed everything in orange, casted long shadows behind pool chairs and sparkled blindingly on the clear surface of the pool. I crossed to “infinity” edge and stared down at the roofs of Whistlebury (another student housing complex). By the elevators, my roommate and the employee looked out over the rooftops of downtown.

“I never knew Athens had a skyline,” the employee said. “But here it is, it’s beautiful.”

“Downtown is a student district,” explained Dr. Hilda Kurtz. Dr. Kurtz is a professor in the Geography Department at UGA (I’d taken her Urban Geography course my sophomore year). “We call it downtown as a residual. It has seats of government, it has some of the central administrative functions of a downtown, but functionally? It’s a student town.”

It’s easy to see what she means. Wind your way up from Broad to Dougherty, and you’ll pass block after block of restaurants, bars, concert venues, and boutiques. There are a few exceptions, of course, like Horton’s Drug Store and the CVS. But the majority of businesses downtown are shaped by two important consumer bases: students armed with, as Dr. Kurtz calls it, “non-trivial amount of disposable income”; and the townies, the young-adult locals, primarily non-students, who dominate the established music scene.

Downtown wasn’t always this homogenous. Prior to the 1980s, it hosted shops for groceries and appliances, movie theaters, and even a car dealership. There were still bars and concert venues, but these were amongst a wide variety of other goods and services. If you weren’t as affluent as some of the students, you could still walk or catch a bus downtown and buy things for your family and home. This portrait matches our traditional idea of what a “downtown” is: a central hub of economic and social activity where a variety of needs are met.

Things began to change in the early 1980s, when the Georgia Square Mall opened on Atlanta Highway. Locally-owned downtown businesses either moved voluntarily or were bought up by larger retail chains. For a brief period of time, downtown Athens was, according to Chamber of Commerce President Doc Eldridge, a “ghost town.” Shortly afterwards, a “nighttime economy” filled the void, and the explosion of bars and venues in the 1980s brought Athens national recognition as a small college town with a whole lot of quirk.

Students got an extra boost in 1993, when Georgia established the HOPE scholarship. What originated as an attempt to stem the state’s brain drain ended up freeing up a lot of savings for middle- and upper-class families with children, which drove up the demand for higher-quality student housing. Students who could afford to upgrade moved closer to nicer locations closer to Downtown. Boutiques and restaurants flourished. Though many rarely stayed in business for more than a few years, building improvements and increased foot traffic became attractive qualities for investors, and rarely was a space empty for long. Now, while places like the Standard and Urban Outfitters may seem to stand out, it’s unknown how significant they’ll be in the long-term.

So it’s undeniable Downtown’s good for businesses – and for the county’s tax base. The Walker’s regulars I spoke to weren’t worried about the higher-end locations. “Athens is cyclical,” they argued, “and it always keeps its character.” Doc Eldridge was also optimistic. “It’s a welcome addition. Is it competition for local business owners? Of course. It’s good for everybody.”

You hear this narrative often – new business is good business, and expensive business is even better. We all stand to benefit from the increase in competition and tax revenues. But it’s just as obvious that not all growth benefits everyone equitably. As GPR’s own Eli Scott pointed out, Athens is still one of the poorest counties of its size in the country. Take an Athens Transit bus down Oglethorpe, and you’ll pass by miles of marginalized communities – largely low-income, largely African American and Latino. Despite the growth Downtown being good for “everyone,” it’s difficult to imagine these communities benefitting much from a new J. Crew opening up – even with marginal increases to the tax base.

The housing situation isn’t improving much, either. A study commissioned by the ACC government found that “workforce housing” – housing for families making between 60 and 120 percent of the area median income – is getting harder to come by. The low-density, single-family housing that these families want just isn’t being built here. Affordable rental housing’s getting rarer as well. In the past decade, 67 percent of the rental housing built was intended for students, and only 11 percent for low-income families.

Even public housing tenants are feeling the pressure. As Marina Applegate of the Athens Housing Authority told me, legislation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development tied public housing rents to market rates – meaning occupants had to start paying a couple hundred dollars more for the same run-down housing. The remaining affordable housing is located in places like the Eastside, where poverty abounds and many units aren’t even fit for occupancy.

The point here isn’t that this inequality is a new, frightening thing. What’s worrisome is that we’ve allowed our narrative of “what’s good for Athens” to subtly exclude a whole lot of Athenians. The city has a reputation for being hip, progressive, and inclusive. But the kinds of policies that would really integrate disparate Athenians – like an inclusionary zoning ordinance or infill development for affordable housing – aren’t likely to be passed without, as Link argues, widespread public shaming.

The spatial seclusion of low-income neighborhoods helps us put them out of mind.The average UGA student may pass by the low-income housing on Broad St. daily, but it’s easy to avert our eyes during those few uncomfortable seconds when socioeconomic injustice is staring us in the face. It would be harder to ignore Athens’ inequality were we passing through neighborhoods like Pine Wood or Tallassee Club on the daily.

During research for this article, I came across an interesting essay by David Harvey called “The Right to the City.” Dr. Harvey is an English scholar of geography and anthropology who writes extensively on capitalism’ effect on cities. As Harvey argues, cities are unique for their concentrations of surplus capital investments. As space runs out, the old must often be torn down to make way for the new, a process which hurts the poor first, and hardest. As capital globalizes, and financial institutions grow and evolve, the owners of these projects – the ones deciding the physical landscape of cities – are increasingly removed from their streets. This poses a real threat to the citizens’ “right to the city” – the right, Harvey argues, to ultimately shape our landscape and shape ourselves. Regardless of if we’re here for four years or for the rest of our lives, our consumption choices will have a very real impact on Athens’ cityscape. If we want to keep thinking of ourselves as uniquely inclusive space, it’s time to start pushing for real, inclusionary policies to make that happen.

Local politics is never sexy. In Georgia, though, it has been dominating headlines.

Two state bills, the “religious freedom” (HB 757) and “campus carry” (HB 859) laws, roiled the Georgia electorate in 2016. Worries about the presidential race evaporated in the face of momentous questions right here at home. Can a state government protect religious institutions without legalizing LGBTQ discrimination? Should students and faculty be allowed to carry concealed guns on college campuses?

The public outcry over the religious freedom bill was large enough: companies including Disney, Delta, and Coca Cola threatened to punish or leave the state if it passed. Campus carry proved even more controversial. Religious leaders, the University System of Georgia (USG) Board of Regents, and all 29 USG presidents publicly opposed the bill. Students and faculty at the University of Georgia rallied for its veto. The law’s opposition ratings were startling: 60 percent at UGA, 70 percent at Georgia Tech, and 80 percent of the state overall.

Both bills were eventually vetoed by Governor Nathan Deal, prompting anger and accusations of Deal “selling out” from some conservatives. More liberal voters breathed a collective sigh of relief, especially on college campuses.

But many Georgians simply feel frustrated. Some are stunned that members of our state legislature passed a law opposed by 80 percent of their constituents. Others feel betrayed by Deal’s vetoes and want more effort from their representatives, such as a veto override from the massive Republican majorities in both houses. Here’s the good news: if you feel frustrated for either reason, and you are registered to vote in Georgia, there is something extremely effective you can do about it.

Go vote in your local and state primary elections on May 24.

The best way to prevent your state representative from passing laws you don’t like? Vote them out of office. The most permanent way to support your representative if you agree with their efforts? Vote them back in. This idea is simple, and certainly not new, but somehow it has gotten lost in the deluge of 24-hour news and political apathy sweeping over the country.

Don’t think your vote will do anything? Think again. In a presidential election this might be true, but votes matter a lot close-to-home. GPR writer Lindsey Powell recently investigated the true power of votes in a local election, and her piece is definitely worth a read. One of her most telling findings had to do with turnout:

“The dismal voter turnout rates in elections for state representatives and senators demonstrate a lack of understanding of the power these individuals hold over our everyday lives… In 2011, only 21 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in local elections. Such low participation means not only that every vote counts, but that each vote carries a significant amount of weight.”

Now, I know, voting takes a lot of effort. My goal is to make it as easy as possible, so I’ve compiled a short guide to navigating your local primary election.

1. Find Your Representatives

If – like me before researching for this article – you don’t know who your local, state, or federal representatives are, visit Ballotpedia’s website. By typing in your address and checking “Elected Officials”, you can instantly get a list of all the representatives at each level for your district. You can click on any representative to learn more about them, their policies, and their voting record.

You can also check the “Sample Ballot” option and get a list of all the officials running in your district for the election on May 24. After five minutes of research, you’ll know exactly which candidates you want to vote for now and see in the general election for your district in November, instead of showing up and recognizing none of the names on the ballot.

2. Look at the Key Issues

Want to know how your state representatives voted on campus carry? First, find your House and Senate representatives on Ballotpedia. Then, check out the voting records for HB 879 in the Georgia House and Senate.

It’s just as easy to discover how your representatives voted on the religious freedom bill. Click here to see the House voting record and here for the Senate.

3. Vote Early

You might not want to wait in long lines on polling day. That’s why early voting exists. In most counties in Georgia, it’s surprisingly widespread and easy to do. Simply click here to find Georgia’s early voting database, select your county, and you’ll be presented with a list of all the locations and times you can vote over the next two weeks, before May 24.

4. Check Your Status

Not sure whether you are registered to vote, or where your polling place is? Check out your “My Voter” page. And if you discover that you’re not registered to vote, register online here to make sure you can vote in the November general election.

Seem Easy Enough?

For most of us, this is probably sufficient to make a decision about our local officials based on the issues we care about. But this is only a starter pack of useful information, so feel free to investigate more on Ballotpedia or elsewhere. You’ll be able to vote on a lot more in this primary than simply the state legislature, including local judges (who, unlike federal judges, are elected by the people). A little research will show you how much power you can wield come May 24.

Whatever you do, don’t neglect your vote. Campus carry and religious freedom are not going away. In fact, they will probably be back on the docket next year, along with important issues like reporting sexual assault on college campuses, gambling, and alcohol sales.

If you wait until the general election this November – when we cast the final votes not only for president, but also for these state officials and important state constitutional amendments – you might be left with only candidates you don’t want anywhere near the capitol. You might be left to witness important issues, which you worked so hard to support or oppose, experience a different fate only 12 months later.

In short, you might be out of luck.

In a few short months, thousands of teenagers will embark on one of the most daunting experience of their lives so far: the transition from high school senior to college freshman. While exciting, this change comes with an abundance of challenges. For most adolescents, the transition represents the first time in their lives they are given total responsibility for themselves and their decisions. Along with the practical aspects of living on their own (do lights and darks really need to be separated before washing?) students are tasked with learning to balance their academic and social lives, developing relationships with professors, joining as many student organizations as possible, and looking like they are having the time of their lives while doing it. After all, college is the best four years of one’s life, right? The first week of this transition is perhaps the most turbulent and stressful week a freshman will experience. How could this week be intensified to an even greater extent? Allow me to introduce…Panhellenic Rush week.

It is this Rush week that can cause feelings of anxiety and overwhelming pressure. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the tradition of allowing freshmen to rush. , and each one of these students has participated in the selection process known as “Rush week”. During this pivotal time, students interested in Greek life visit fraternity and sorority houses and participate in multiple rounds of interviews, informational sessions, and activities to determine which organization suits them best. For many students, this week will determine the course of their next four years. The friends they make, the events they attend, and the causes they champion will all be decided by the bids (offers of admission) they do (or do not) receive at the end of the event. Some sororities and fraternities have developed reputations for being more desirable than others, and many students stake their happiness on receiving a bid from the group they consider most elite. After spending countless hours agonizing over the perfect outfit and practicing flawless interview answers, is there any time left to focus on the first week of college classes? The all-consuming activities of Rush week can easily tempt students to miss the first, and arguably most important, weeks of class. Fondly referred to as “syllabus week,” this indispensable week of classes provides many opportunities to build relationships with professors and to learn what to expect from one’s courses– and drop them if necessary.

Academic inattention is not the only reason to consider eliminating Rush week from the freshman year schedule. Although underage alcohol consumption is not endorsed by Greek letter organizations, it is a regular, and sometimes deadly, occurrence. Dalton Debrick, a freshman at Texas Tech University, died of alcohol poisoning before his first day of classes while participating in Rush week. Though tragic, Dalton’s story is far from unthinkable. Greek organizations have significantly higher rates of alcohol and illegal substance consumption than students who are not involved in Greek life. Because Greek organizations hold many social events at bars,

Although many students have great experiences as members of a fraternity or sorority, the absence of the Panhellenic institutions from one’s freshman year could open the student to a world of new opportunities and avoid the sense of division that is commonly felt between Greek and non-Greek students. Chapter meetings, socials, and fundraising events can be great, but they are also incredibly time-consuming. While many freshmen are responsible, some students are still adjusting to life as an adult. The same students who were subject to their parents’ curfew only months before are now responsible for managing their own schedules. Freshman year is the time when a student should establish solid time management skills, and with so many compulsory academic obligations, committing to Greek life can push stress to unhealthy levels.

Many schools have recognized the detrimental effects Greek life involvement can have on freshmen. For example, Dartmouth College only allows students who have completed three full terms and are in good academic standing to participate in Rush week. Other schools have taken notice and have implemented similar policies. Undergraduates at Trinity University of San Antonio, Texas are not allowed to rush until they have completed twelve credit hours while maintaining a GPA of 2.3. The school believes that its policy of deferring Greek life involvement contributes to academic excellence and reduced stress levels for the school’s youngest students. Schools across the nation are taking steps to reform the Greek life system. University of Michigan’s Dean of Student Life, Laura Blake Jones, recently addressed sorority and fraternity leaders with a serious message, “I fear some of you have embraced a work-hard, play-hard mentality and that you may have taken to the extreme what has us on this downward spiral, and we know we have to turn this around,” she said. “It’s clear to me that if we can’t begin to make meaningful, student-led progress and change immediately on our campus, the future of sorority and fraternity life as we know it is in peril.” In an effort to rebrand Greek culture, the university and enforced stricter underage drinking regulation and has required greater communication between the school and the Greek organizations.

Everyone remembers the emotions of freshman year: the excitement, the anxiety, and perhaps most of all, the stress. With so many changes to adjust to, it may be wise to follow in the steps of some of the most prestigious universities and defer the time-honored tradition of Panhellenic Rush week until students have developed their time management skills, academic goals, and collegiate identities. Many look back on their time in a Greek letter organization with great fondness, but reserving the freshman year for focus and self-development provides a healthy sense of balance as well as a strong foundation of academic excellence.