Everyone’s heard of “main character energy.” Whether it’s used to describe the vibe of the day or an outlook on life, Gen Z has decided to embrace its own experience being the pivotal way in which it perceives the world. But this energy often causes Gen Z to act in a way that’s not considerate of others, and these behaviors can be seen clearly in concert venues. 

I’m not saying people don’t have the right to enjoy concerts in their own way. They totally can, but they should also realize a concert is a group event. This outlook is something Gen Z seems to have forgotten.

During concerts, fans should alter their verbal and physical behaviors to be considerate of others. To make it more enjoyable for everyone in the audience, Gen Z concertgoers should practice basic crowd etiquette, including using their phone for a few pictures and videos throughout the concert but not the whole time, refraining from complaining about the performer or asking inappropriate questions and taking breaks to sit instead of standing the whole show.

As the first generation born in the digital age, Gen Z has forgotten how to be present. While there is nothing wrong with taking pictures and filming clips of a show, your concert experience shouldn’t happen entirely through a screen. I’ve been there, done that. You think you need videos to look back on the concert experience, when in reality, you rarely view those videos after you post them. Not only does filming the whole performance impede your ability to be present in the moment, but it also forces those behind you to look over your screen to see the concert that they also paid for.

There should be a middle ground in using technology in concerts. Your phone doesn’t need to be locked up, but it also shouldn’t be out for the entire two-hour show. Take plenty of pictures before and after, document clips of your favorite songs, but also put the phone down to dance along or talk to your neighbors before the show starts.

Another way Gen Z misses the mark in crowd etiquette is in audience interactions. Recently, I enjoyed this university’s Homecoming Comedy Show. Many students expressed dismay at their phones being locked up in Yondr pouches. But to me, that wasn’t the most concerning point of the night.

Marcello, in a very nice gesture, opened up to audience questions at the end of his set, something comedians rarely do. In response to what seemed like a genuine gesture to allow college students to ask about fun moments or his career, some asked for birthday messages or for merch to be autographed.

Although it’s their prerogative to ask those kinds of questions, it felt that those were not the kinds of responses that the Q&A was meant to elicit. These kinds of questions, that people ask for their own sake, are a byproduct of the lack of consciousness of modern audiences.

Concert experiences suffer the same fate, with people loudly complaining about the performer or refusing to participate in crowd activities. These verbal behaviors aren’t the only downfall of concert experiences, but the physical reactions of audience members can also make a concert less enjoyable.

I’ve experienced several concert venues and settings, and one of my best experiences was in 2022 in Newark, New Jersey. The performer was Stray Kids, and for almost the entire concert, I was able to remain seated without my view being blocked. To some, that may sound boring, but in higher sections, it can feel dangerous to stand or dance because there is very limited floor space in front of the seats. Arenas tend to suffer this problem the most, with what feels like a foot of space in front of the seats in higher sections. Standing for hours can become uncomfortable or just plain scary, being high up with that level of floor space. Dancing for part of the concert but sitting during breaks or slower songs can allow the audience to still enjoy the performance without standing for three hours.

In contrast, seeing the same group in 2025 was very different in terms of the crowd. The show was unfortunately taking place in the middle of the heat wave in June 2025. While the concert did happen, it was cut short due to concerns for the fans’ and performers’ health. While the heat was a major factor in health issues, fans were also still trying to dance or stand, some even rushing to form a crowd on the first level when it was assumed to be time for the carts to make the laps around the park. There is an innate responsibility on the viewer to make use of the resources available to them in these situations, rather than always standing up at a concert. In a heat wave, sitting in the provided seats instead of rushing to crowd a section of the stadium is the responsible thing to do for your safety and the safety of others. The illusion that the performer will see you specifically in the crowd needs to take a back seat to creating a safe environment. 

Fans have the responsibility to make choices that create a fun and safe concert environment. While the concert tickets may be bought in groups of two or three, the experience is one for dozens, hundreds or thousands of people at once. To make the concert experience fair and safe, whether in the nosebleeds or the pit, everyone should be conscious of their phone use, verbal comments and if they are physically obstructing the view of others by standing. Being the main character is fun in everyday life, but it can shape someone else’s concert experience into a negative one.

Sophia Williams is a senior architecture major. She can be reached at sgw76@terpmail.umd.edu.

Since when did loving your country mean having to sign a loyalty pledge to the person sitting in the Oval Office?

Recently, I’ve noticed “patriotism” has become rebranded to mean loyalty to one political party, emphasizing affiliation over country. The Trump administration’s new compact for exclusive funding for certain universities is the clearest and most unsettling example yet.

What seems like a harmless monetary offer to nine U.S. universities actually gives priority funding if a university pledges to follow all “institutional neutrality” standards set by the federal government. These standards include banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs, limiting international student enrollment and forcing universities to stay neutral on social issues. It’s a policy that would silence faculty and student perspectives and punish schools for acknowledging inequality.

Most universities declined to sign the compact, but it sets a dangerous precedent.

If the compact ever came to the University of Maryland, which president Darryll Pines previously stated it has not yet, the university should reject it without hesitation and reaffirm that its only allegiance is to the truth, not to any president. I encourage students to use their voice and call on the Student Government Association and University Senate to pass resolutions to reject any government attempt to interfere with the curriculum, making it clear that this university will never subvert its own community for the sake of compliance.

In April, the University Senate voted in favor of joining a mutual defense compact with other Big Ten universities to protect attacks on higher education. That compact was designed to create a coalition that would defend each other in the event of overreaching federal interference. This is a good step in the right direction for the student body at Maryland, as it signals the university community would not shy away from confronting the government, especially as polarization in our country continues.

The compact the Trump administration created is more than a straightforward agreement. It’s part of a rise of the ‘woke right,’ a conservative movement that tries to restrict speech with different values rather than protecting free expression for all. Those who have been criticizing “cancel culture” for years are now at the forefront of a new version of it.

Many people have been doxxing private citizens online, firing employees for criticizing right-wing figures and publicly shaming speech they don’t agree with.

After the assassination of influencer Charlie Kirk, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) condemned anyone who criticized Kirk and referred to them as “terrorists”. In a show of hypocrisy, though, Lee had mocked the murder of Minnesota Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, just months earlier in a now-deleted series of posts with jokes about their assassination.

Everyone claims to love free speech until someone uses it against them. Accountability only seems to matter when it’s the other side crossing the line. It’s the same double standard every time — it’s a problem when they do it, but not when I do it.
The compact cements that double standard in education. By setting their own standards, the government is letting higher education know that their neutrality means capitulation to the administration.
And to be completely clear, political extremism has no place in this country from either side. But the compact highlights a broader cultural threat, too.
When I was younger, I thought the American dream meant loving your neighbor and being proud to live in the United States. But these days, the term patriot has been skewed to represent one side of the political spectrum. If you have an American flag, a gun and a beer you’re automatically placed into a box. But patriotism should never be partisan.

It’s not just about loving your country. Whether you’re a Democrat, Republican or anyone in between, everyone should reject the idea that criticism of the government means disloyalty to the country. The American flag doesn’t symbolize Donald Trump, nor should it ever venerate a single individual. It flies for everyone in this country — every student, retiree and worker. For everyone who has ever struggled but has found the United States their home.

The best part about this country is its diversity. The backbone of our nation is built on the welcoming of all different voices and ideas. Our fundamental freedoms are not partisan ideas, and they should never be.

Yet, the Compact tries to take those freedoms and obscure their true meaning. Asking for loyalty in exchange for money is something no higher education institution should agree to.

From universities being asked to sign the Compact to people being fired for expressing dissent  — not hate speech, but simply another view — polarization has split this country in half.

The best way to prove our loyalty to freedom is by refusing to stop questioning those in power.

Arjun Bhide is a freshman government and politics major. He can be reached at abhide1@terpmail.umd.edu.

Since president Donald Trump returned to office in January, universities across the United States have received much of his ire. The behavior and policies in Washington, D.C., have direct consequences for college students — now more than ever — and we deserve to learn about them.

Under the Trump administration, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have threatened students with deportation, international student visas have been rejected and the Department of Education and nationwide diversity, equity and inclusion offices have been dismantled. Federal research grants, including at the University of Maryland, and financial aid programs face significant cuts. Transgender student athletes have been barred from women’s sports. The administration also has used its financial power in an attempt to influence university policies, including demands to restrict student protests. For many students, recent political developments are deeply personal and sometimes life altering.

Despite these unprecedented events occurring in our country, I’ve noticed many classrooms at this university seem to adhere to a “business-as-usual” approach and avoid discussions regarding current events for fear of ostracization. Professors likely want to prevent accusations of being too biased or political and imposing their beliefs on students. These anxieties have merit — several professors at the university have already made Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA “Professor Watchlist”, primarily for their inclusion of LGBTQ+, feminist and anti-racist course material. In today’s political climate, attracting negative attention from conservatives can pose a real danger to university faculty.

But professors don’t have to preach ideology in order to foster inquiry. And promoting science and basic civil liberties isn’t political — or at least, it shouldn’t be. Academic settings are designed to impart lessons that surpass dominant and often misleading narratives. When U.S. universities silence open discussions, they are unintentionally mirroring the censorship they are supposed to be actively resisting.

Higher education institutions have a responsibility to instill students with more than historical facts and abstract concepts. The ability to think critically about the past and present is diminishing in an era where information is primarily shared superficially via social media. Academic environments that encourage nuanced reflection are essential. Even if students disagree with the ideas presented by the majority of the class, facilitating respectful dialogue allows everyone to learn how to meaningfully defend their opinion and contemplate what exactly they are defending.

Furthermore, students must be equipped for the world as it is right now, not the one presented in a curated curriculum designed years ago. Discussing recent developments is an invaluable opportunity to connect students with the world they will pursue careers in, especially in classes that cover relevant topics, like political science, sociology, public policy, international relations, economics and cultural and gender studies. An institution that produces students with strong academics is meaningless without the ability to successfully apply what they have learned in matters that hold current significance.

In law classes, case studies on current immigration cases or Supreme Court decisions allow students to deeply consider the individuals and subjects they will work with. In politics and international relations classes, discussions and analyses about recent policies, programs and conflicts are crucial in applying course material to future work. In pre-med and public health classes, dialogue and curriculum covering issues of medical autonomy, like reproductive rights and euthanasia and anti-vax sentiments would introduce students to the scrutiny they will likely face for the entirety of their career.

Moreover, it is important for every student to have a comprehensive understanding of current events — especially when they may be directly impacted. Open dialogue about how political affairs are affecting students and the people they know can promote informed and empathetic voting decisions.

Professors at this university have a unique opportunity to prepare students for the challenges they will face in an increasingly complicated world by fostering open dialogue on current events. Avoiding these conversations only perpetuates a disconnect between academia and the realities students will confront beyond the classroom.

Anushka Shah is a junior government and politics major with a concentration in international relations. She can be reached at fromanushkashah@gmail.com.

While living on North Campus last year at the University of Maryland, I quickly discovered a pet peeve that still frustrates me to this day. Maybe it’s because I’m an architecture major, or maybe it’s because I refuse to be what I can only describe as a phone zombie when walking, but the intersection from Lot Z to Knight Hall is the bane of my existence. 

You might think that statement is dramatic, but walking the path from Easton Hall to the architecture building makes it clear that the construction of the Purple Line at this intersection created pedestrian crossings that are not in line with how students walk through campus. 

Instead of creating a crosswalk between the sidewalk near the parking lot that directly crosses to the sidewalk in front of Knight Hall, pedestrians are given three options: take a left and walk uphill to the next crosswalk, only to walk downhill again. Turn right and you’ll have to walk till you get to the crosswalk, then walk back uphill. But the option I see most pedestrians choose is option three: look both ways and cross three lanes of traffic. 

The Purple Line is set to begin operating in 2027, and as of September 2025, more than 82 percent of the project had been completed. While construction continues to be ongoing on campus at this university, many sections are now completed, such as Rossborough Lane and Campus Drive. But even though much of the campus construction is done, the Purple Line will continue to harm pedestrians long after construction is completed.

Finishing these sections has led to the addition of new infrastructure on campus, such as a traffic light at the intersection of Campus Drive and Regents Drive. While some advocate that the new signal increases pedestrian safety, many bypass this light and head down a little further on Regents Drive and cross near the side of the physics building, which is north of the new signal. 

This secondary crosswalk poses new challenges because it’s more difficult for pedestrians to see incoming traffic from the light when cars are lined up to turn at the signal. There’s no easy fix — reducing the times between signal changes could be helpful for pedestrians, but could be harmful to drivers who may rush through them.

Purple Line construction on campus has not only changed how pedestrians navigate campus, but also how they now navigate micromobility users. A project undertaken by this university in 2024 reimagined bike lane connections throughout campus, outlining new lanes that this university has committed to making a reality. 

While this infrastructure is important for the safety of micromobility users, protecting them from the dangers of the Purple Line, they have become harmful to pedestrians. The two-lane bike lane added to Campus Drive has no barrier from the pedestrian sidewalk, making it easy for pedestrians to obstruct the lane from micromobility users, and has no signage at intersections where pedestrians frequently cross for micromobility users to slow down or stop. 

The common denominator in all these safety concerns is that these new interventions are a result of the Purple Line Construction. While this university is not in charge of the state-created construction project, it can analyze new pedestrian patterns and the ways existing ones may need to be modified because of Purple Line completion. 

These problems have easy solutions: create a crosswalk at Knight Hall that makes more sense for pedestrian crossing patterns, shorten the time between traffic signal changes at newly added traffic signals and create barriers between bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks with stop signs or yield signage so pedestrians can cross the lanes safely. 

If this university does not understand the need for new safety conventions because of Purple Line construction, pedestrians could continue to be harmed after the construction ends.

Sophia Williams is a senior architecture major. She can be reached at sgw76@terpmail.umd.edu.

Diamondback staff chose a few topics, but we want to pick a subject matter that would benefit the University of Maryland, College Park and Prince George’s County communities the most. So we want to hear from you.

Please respond to this brief form about possible event topics by Nov. 10 at 11:59 p.m. Please feel free to reach out to diamondbackeditor@gmail.com with any questions.

Since January, university students across the United States have reckoned with the possibility of facing consequences for their free speech.

We watched it happen at Tufts University in Massachusetts, where the federal government revoked a student’s visa for advocating in support of Palestine. The government did the same in New York in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University alum and Palestinian activist who is still in the middle of a deportation legal battle. 

These kinds of federal actions against students for their protected First Amendment speech are dangerous. That’s why The Diamondback on Wednesday signed onto an amicus brief in support of The Stanford Daily’s lawsuit that challenges U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s use of two immigration laws to revoke student visas for protected speech. 

The amicus brief, which is also known as a “friend of the court” filing, signals The Diamondback’s support for The Stanford Daily’s lawsuit. We’re among more than 50 other student publications and editors who signed. 

The Diamondback staff takes our role as an independent student newspaper seriously. We have a role in telling the stories of our community at the University of Maryland, in College Park and across Prince George’s County. This includes protecting our sources, reporters and community members in any way we can from retaliation for their speech.

And since January, we’ve seen an influx of community members concerned about speaking with the media. Other student newspapers, like The Stanford Daily, have seen students nervous to write opinion columns and report the truth. Nobody should be scared to voice their opinion or unwilling to use their free speech rights out of fear for being deported or having a visa revoked — that’s a constitutional protection in the U.S., and one we are responsible for upholding. 

That’s why we signed on to this brief, and why we’ll continue to monitor federal action and how it affects our community. As this is a friend of the court brief, The Diamondback is not involved in active litigation. But we’ll continue to pledge our support, and want to assure our readers that this is a problem we take seriously.

To read more about the brief, visit the Student Press Law Center’s site here. And to learn more about The Stanford Daily’s lawsuit, visit here.

Lizzy Alspach is The Diamondback’s 2025-26 editor in chief. She can be reached at diamondbackeditor@gmail.com.

After the recent assassination of political influencer Charlie Kirk, I noticed just how much sway the conservative leader had over young voters.

Naturally, I wondered who in the Democratic party had that same pull. A quick Google search left me disappointed to find Hillary Clinton’s name topping the list.

Yes, in 2025, the biggest political influencer on X is still the former secretary of state. The problem? Clinton represents a party clinging to the past, still tied to decades-old donors. Her influence feels nostalgic, while Kirk’s platform was built on youth engagement, not legacy. Ironically, the conservative movement suddenly feels more forward-thinking than the Democrats when it comes to mobilizing younger voters.
Charlie Kirk was no stranger to young voters. In the 13 years since founding Turning Point USA, a nonprofit aimed at cultivating conservative youth support, Kirk toured college campuses, debating students and generating viral clips that often left his opponents embarrassed.
Let me be clear: Charlie Kirk was a controversial figure, outrageously defending gun deaths as the “cost” of the Second Amendment and opposing abortion even in cases of a minor’s rape.

But whether you agree with him or not, one thing is for certain: Kirk made “Trumpism” approachable for new conservatives. He built a movement that filled stadiums, our TikTok feeds and helped expand Trump’s voter base.

Meanwhile, Democrats do not have an obvious figure with that reach. Sure, they lead with young voters on paper, but enthusiasm is measured by presence.

Conservatives are packing lecture halls and quads, while Democrats recycle the same faces and cringe slogans: remember “Kamala is Brat”? One side builds loyalty as the other builds millennial memes that would make even Taylor Swift shake her head.
Democrats do actually have an answer to this problem, they just don’t want to acknowledge it.

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, is proof. He’s authentic and outspoken, showing up where young people are, something that resulted in record youth voter turnout in the Democratic primary.
Mamdani firmly says what his own party won’t. His unapologetically pro-Palestine stance is refreshing in an age where it seems every politician is muzzled by AIPAC donors.
It’s not just Mamdani, either. Figures such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Maryland’s own progressive, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who flew to El Salvador to meet with a wrongfully deported Maryland resident, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, show me that Democrats have leaders willing to stand up and make change.
This is where the Democrats’ focus should be. Politics isn’t polite, and while I supported Kamala Harris in 2024, her campaign stayed centrist, pandering to moderate Republicans. By avoiding progressive stances, she alienated progressive voices. Although Trump’s rhetoric has always been heavily criticized, he owned it and won twice. Democrats don’t need to mimic Trump’s cruelty, because political extremism is never the answer. But they do need to learn from his fearlessness. The political arena rewards those who are bold, those willing to leave Capitol Hill and meet voters in their communities.

Sen. Bernie Sanders recently ventured into West Virginia to connect with voters, and his stop with Ocasio-Cortez at the University of Montana drew thousands of students ready to mobilize. Even Harris, to her credit, brought that energy to voters during a recent visit to Howard University, proof that when Democrats show up and speak directly to voters, they spark something real. I’ve seen the mobilization of groups on this university’s campus, from Turning Point USA chapters to the Democratic Socialists of America. I was proud recently to see the university permit a peaceful protest for Palestine by Students for Justice in Palestine and a memorial service demanding the return of hostages held in Gaza.
The evidence is right in front of us: students are fired up, but they just need someone to show up for them. If Democrats don’t foster that connection with younger voters, they will continue to lose, and right now Republicans are the only ones treating campuses like the battleground they are.
Too many Democrats are obsessed with being the “opposite of Trump,” unprepared for when he leaves office. That moment will be the ultimate test, because as much as I didn’t agree with Charlie Kirk, he understood controversy creates influence. Until Democrats stop being afraid of both, they’ll keep losing the culture war.

Arjun Bhide is a freshman government and politics major. He can be reached at abhide1@terpmail.umd.edu.

As a transfer student, I already knew my college experience was not a conventional one. 

In movies and media, it’s expected that you go away to college right after high school for four years. I was already insecure about my college experience as a transfer student when I started looking to apply to the University of Maryland, but the admissions process made me feel distanced from the attention that incoming high school seniors receive. 

The admissions website offers three tour options to prospective students, yet none of these options are exclusively catered toward transfer students. Incoming transfers make up a large portion of incoming students, with about 2,000 undergraduate transfer students enrolling each year. One would assume that with this many new transfer students, this university would offer specialized services for them.

The largest failure of the admissions department is this lack of resources. In my experience touring the university as a transfer student, I was placed with high school juniors and seniors. Many transfer students don’t need to know how to submit their SAT scores or AP credits because they’ve already gone through the process, but they’re grouped in with people who have completely different needs. 

When I asked about transfer services or organizations on my tour, it almost seemed like transfer students didn’t exist. When I asked about transfer student housing, I was told we could live in apartments on campus, such as South Campus Commons and Courtyards, but what I wasn’t told was that the deadline to apply for these apartments was before the deadline to apply to the university. When I met other transfer students at orientation, I heard the same story over and over again: I applied for on-campus housing, but I haven’t received any placement, so now I’m scrambling to find an off-campus apartment. 

Tour guides should share more information about transfer student housing, dining, organizations and classes, just like they do for students coming in from high school. Incoming high school seniors are told about resident dining plans, clubs they can join and general education requirements they’ll have to meet. But when sharing their trademark stories on why the tour guide chose this university, I rarely hear that the guide started at a community college or other university and later transferred. 

Previous initiatives, such as transfer mentorship programs, have been tried. But they’re not widely advertised or talked about, so they appear short-lived. When perusing through Transfer and Off-Campus Student Life Office’s website for mentorship programs, none are mentioned. Transfers deserve to build a community through meeting fellow transfers and hearing their stories and advice, whether it’s through tours or a dedicated mentoring program. The engineering school at this university provides a mentorship experience to incoming transfers. If the engineering school can do it, why can’t it become a campuswide standard?

These failures cause incoming students to feel alienated in the admissions process. It’s even more important to create more transfer student-friendly experiences now, especially as the number of transfer students in the United States is rising due to affordability issues. 

The admission process can start fixing this oversight by creating an informative tour that specifically caters to transfer students. While this would require hiring more student tour guides and researching and creating a new tour route, I believe it will boost transfer student visits to campus. This new tour would also allow the university to host nearby community colleges and provide a tour specific to prospective students looking to transfer to this university. 

This new tour should talk about issues unique to the transfer experience. Students should be given the resources for how they can learn if their community college credits transfer and their equivalents to classes at this university. The tour should inform students about transfer student organizations, such as the Transfer and Off-Campus Student Life Office, and how to get involved with these programs. It should also mention that the university offers classes specifically to transfer students to help with the transition process. 

The tour should also be honest about the fact that transfer students are the lowest priority for on-campus housing, and many will not be guaranteed housing by the university. Supplemental resources for off-campus housing and nearby student housing should be given to tour goers. Dining options such as the block dining plan and Dining Dollars should be explained in detail, because many transfer students are not on-campus residents. 

Many people take an unconventional path to getting their college degree, but that doesn’t mean these students should be overlooked. Transfer students should be made to feel welcomed on campus, not more ostracized.

Sophia Williams is a senior architecture major. She can be reached at sgw76@terpmail.umd.edu.