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.

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.

Picture this scenario: SECU Stadium’s lights are on and a Maryland football game is in full swing. The crowd cheers close to halftime, with the Terps taking the lead in score. You’re standing shoulder-to-shoulder with your friends and family, chanting in unison as the timer ticks down.

This scenario depicts a typical evening or late night football game at any college, not just ours. Football is not just a sport about scoring touchdowns and winning points: It brings together friends, family and others who have a shared interest in supporting their community.

Attendance at sporting events does not necessarily translate to having a passion for the sport; sometimes, students attend because their friends are going, they have family coming over to watch a sporting rivalry or distancing themselves from the stressful workload they face during the week.

The University of Maryland has been facing issues regarding sporting event attendance, with numbers declining by each game. I remember since my freshman year, the amount of enthusiasm and number of eager fans have declined. There are numerous factors that contribute to this issue: bad weather, lack of student support, busy schedules and more.

Football is just an example of the D1 sports this university offers. Given this dilemma, Maryland athletics needs to promote higher student attendance at games.

Students make up the majority of the community, and without them, there would be no university sporting events. According to Maryland sport psychology director Kristi Hall, teams win more often at home than away at other universities. While we cannot have our teams playing the games at home base, we have to think of other solutions.

There are multiple solutions to bringing students to more sporting events, but the one that may attract the most individuals are apparel giveaways at games. We students will seize the opportunity to receive free items in the form of T-shirts or other merch. We’re paying a hefty amount to be here, and pay an athletic fee in our bill, why not get a bang for the buck? The university currently gives away merch mostly before games, causing early arrivals to leave early. Distributing merch at various points during the game could encourage more students to stay longer.

The athletic department should increase the quantity of apparel giveaways to draw more students to sporting events, especially with big rivalry events such as when we face Penn State in football and Duke in basketball.

Temple University had the same issue of student attendance at games declining by the year. Upon sending a survey to the students, Temple University discovered that giveaways of any type were the main indicator of increased attendance rates at games. With this in mind, perhaps increasing the number of giveaways at university related sporting events is the way to go, even if it means students are attending just for the sake of receiving a material incentive.

Maryland could also implement Florida State University’s “Spear it Rewards” program, which rewards students with points for attending sporting events. The more points, the more prizes and high-demand games students are eligible for. The Florida program increased student attendance at all games by more than 32 percent within a year, all through marketing through the point system.

This university uses a similar loyalty rewards system to manage student access to high-demand athletic events, awarding points to those who regularly attend games and deducting points from those who claim tickets but do not show up.

Maryland athletics could expand their current rewards program to include more giveaways of apparel and merchandise, allowing students who qualify for high-demand games to automatically qualify for apparel at giveaways. This should especially be done for non-mainstream sporting events, such as soccer and baseball.

When the stands are filled, the energy transforms the game into an unforgettable experience for both the players and the fans. Supporting all sports not only rewards the athletes’ hard work but also deepens campus unity and pride.

By increasing the number of giveaways part of a larger effort to energize campus spirit, Maryland athletics can rebuild the sense of tradition that once made our stands roar.

Rishab Sai is a sophomore public health practice major. He can be reached at rsai1@terpmail.umd.edu.

It’s the beginning of the semester, and you take a look at the list of books needed for your classes. You do a double-take. Your grand total is a whopping $1,000 — not far off from the University of Maryland’s estimate of $1,250 on books and supplies a student.

Reducing textbook fees is not just a wallet issue, it’s an education issue. The cost of course materials has a direct and negative impact on academic success. Students report the cost of their course materials affects the institution they chose to go to, their major and their minor.

Surveys show that more than half of students have taken fewer courses or skipped registering for them altogether because they couldn’t afford the required books, and 41 percent admitted their grades have suffered due to this gap in accessibility. This makes it abundantly clear the high cost of textbooks is a major obstacle to student academic achievement.

This isn’t just a problem at this university. Full-time undergraduate students spend an average of $1,000 to $1,220 on books and supplies a year, according to the College Board. This is equal to working about 60 to 80 hours at Maryland minimum wage to cover the cost.

As students, when we’re already paying tuition, housing and dining expenses and daily living costs, the additional thousand of dollars can be yet another overwhelming expense. To aid their students, all faculty should make efforts to provide all students with more affordable options to lessen their financial load.

Ensuring that all students have guaranteed access to required course materials is essential for creating an educationally-level playing field. By offering avenues to make course materials freely available, faculty can help remove financial barriers, support academic achievement and foster equity across all programs and departments.

By focusing on the adoption of open educational resources, faculty can provide students with accessible learning materials at little to no cost. OpenStax, Libre Texts and Open Educational Resources Commons all have high quality, free materials ready to be used.

Additionally, Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a program called OpenCourseWare, a web-based publication of virtually all of the university’s course content, showing education at elite institutions is and should be accessible. The program allows students to reduce their financial burden by eliminating the need to purchase expensive textbooks.

This university has already taken steps in this direction by incorporating open educational resources through M.O.S.T Commons, a platform that allows faculty to share, adapt and implement open resources across a wide range of subjects. This university also offers a research guide to help students and faculty find existing open educational resources.

Expanding the use of this resource and making it more mainstream could help normalize open source adoption across departments, reduce financial stress for students and encourage faculty to explore innovative, flexible teaching materials. Furthermore, supporting faculty with training in how to access and find open educational materials would make this approach sustainable and impactful in the long term.

Taking this a step forward, this university could require that every professor provide a free textbook alternative for their students. Faculty members can apply for funding through the Maryland Open Source Textbook Initiative to create high quality digital versions of textbooks. For students who prefer physical copies, this university should create a system where printing classroom materials is free, instead of having to pay 10 to 50 cents a page, depending on the ink. This would especially reduce the financial burden for low-income students.

Funding for free printing could come from reallocating a small portion of the library’s operation budget, redirecting some collections and content funds from lesser-used subscriptions, using part of student library and technology fees and leveraging existing auxiliary printing income.

This should also extend to lab materials. Lab manuals, in particular, are another additional cost, even though many are updated only slightly each year. This university could require departments to provide free, digital versions of these manuals, ensuring that every student has access to materials from day one. For those who prefer a physical copy, the same printing system could apply, allowing students to print the sections they need without the extra financial strain.

Many faculty members have already taken the next steps to reduce the financial burden of course materials. College is already a huge financial investment, especially for low-income students. Students should not need to decide between having a meal and getting the books they need to succeed in their degree.

Providing free textbooks is a matter of fairness, accountability and accessibility. If this university truly wants to support its students, faculty must act now to remove this barrier and ensure that every Terp has the best chance to thrive.

Srijani Chakraborty is a sophomore bioengineering student. She can be reached at schak19@terpmail.umd.edu.

Amid widespread political pressure on higher education institutions in the United States, the University of Maryland has set a dangerous precedent in relinquishing part of its independence.

In August, the university joined numerous institutions across the country in rebranding its Office of Diversity and Inclusion to the Office of Belonging & Community.

Nationwide efforts dedicated to encouraging diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have been integral villains in the Trump administration’s narrative since the president’s first term. In his second, the war on such policies has only escalated, with Trump pinning everything from the tragic Washington, D.C., plane crash in January to federal agency inefficiencies on diversity initiatives.

Earlier this year, American colleges and universities were accused of abusing their authority by “imposing discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion” standards, with Trump signing executive orders that directed them to halt participation in such practices and disclose admissions data to the federal government. Unfortunately, this university was one of many to bend. If we want to retain further integrity as an institution, we cannot continue to do so in response to iniquitous political agendas.

The administration threatened colleges and universities that failed to comply with federal funding freezes or cuts, and has also threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of private institutions.

Several state lawmakers have enacted policy rollbacks or bans, which has forced public universities like the University of Michigan and the entire University of North Carolina system to fully dissolve their diversity, equity and inclusion offices and programs. But it is important to note that this university did have a choice, with Maryland leaders affirming their commitment to preserving diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Other public universities in Maryland, including the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, Towson University, the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and nearby Bowie State University, have all maintained such programs and initiatives, at least according to their websites.

And if the University of Maryland continues to concede to the government, its students and faculty are at severe risk of losing comparable rights.

Columbia University was stripped of $400 million in federal funding after Trump alleged a series of pro-Palestine protests indicated the university’s antisemitism. The Trump administration also targeted Harvard University, blocking $2.2 billion in federal funding and $60 million in federal contracts and attempting to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend the university.

Harvard has refused to comply with the majority of Trump’s demands about giving power over the university to the government, as well as restricting minority and international enrollment. And while Harvard sued the administration in retaliation, it too has made plenty of concessions, removing its women’s and LGBTQ+ student centers, ending its undergraduate minority recruitment program, and, like this university, quietly adjusting its terminology away from diversity, equity and inclusion.

For now, the change at the University of Maryland is largely symbolic. But symbols exist for a reason. The rebrand is understandable given the current political climate and allows for the systems and procedures that defined the diversity, equity and inclusion office to remain in place. But it is deeply concerning, as it appears to validate the Trump administration’s outlandish claims and hints at a willingness to comply with administration demands on the initiatives.

This would put the university’s commitment to an inclusive campus and overall reputation as an academically and socially progressive, respected, sovereign and credible institution at stake. And if we look to universities like Columbia and Harvard as examples, it seems as though more allowances are in store for this university under its current trajectory. I’m sympathetic to the school’s reliance on federal funding, but far more is at risk if it continues to yield.

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

I expected refreshing, giddy romance from Love Island USA’s new season. What I got was a huge headache.

It’s called LOVE Island, not Drama Island. With its enticing premise of single people finding love, viewers tune in for the potential connections and the drama that accompanies romantic exploration.

Last season saw high viewership, boasting more than 919.1 million minutes watched between July 5 and July 11 last year. That season’s final three women, JaNa, Leah and Serena, were the heart of the show. The winners, Serena and Kordell, gave us the warm, romantic moments we crave.

But when I watched Season 7, I felt a noticeable shift — leaning more into drama, making the show increasingly frustrating to watch.

Huda and Jeremiah dominated the screen with their intense conversations and quick attachment. The show began with the drama-filled toxicity of this couple instead of spotlighting the connections forming within the villa, such as Chelley’s relationship with Austin and Nic’s with Belle-A. Islanders aired grievances during the mailbox challenge through anonymous letters. Pepe directly questioned why Hannah was voted out, most men in the villa ganged up on Amaya’s affectionate tendencies and Huda was interrogated about her loyalty and “girl code.”

Islanders were not shy to be aggressive and ask pointed questions, and the resulting arguments unveiled everyone’s true colors. The challenge felt intentionally designed by producers to push drama to the forefront — a frustrating shift from the previous season.

Similarly, challenges that were once lighthearted took on a more hostile tone. Some, like the heart rate challenge, led to full-scale arguments among some of the islanders.

Other Love Island USA seasons did have some drama and toxicity. But the islanders’ actions this season transformed it into a diluted, murky version of its former self.

Strategy seems to be some islanders’ governing ideology for the $100,000 ending grand prize.

Cierra, a bombshell, stated her willingness to pursue connections even if it meant “stepping on toes.” Her departure from the show, which came quickly after social media posts from her account that used a racial slur resurfaced online, made the villa appear to be more relaxed.

Similarly, Ace came off as an extreme competitor. He early on championed exploring “everybody 24/7.” Ace and Chelley didn’t make it to the finale, but their sly personas were clear when Ace hyperfocused on Jeremiah’s actions and Chelley strung Austin along. While they both were considered a strong couple since the beginning, they waited an obnoxiously long time to officially close off, making their actions calculated. Ace and Chelley knowing each other prior to this season is the cherry on top — the ultimate piece of overstrategizing on the show.

The cutthroat strategy to win was taken too far. It cheapened the idea of love and made this show an off-putting experience for viewers.

Instead of Love Island USA, viewers got another competitive reality show with romance sprinkled on the side.

To fix it, producers should cast islanders who are not influencers. Selecting islanders with diverse, relatable backgrounds genuinely looking for a connection rather than an audience would make the show inherently more alluring and foster the authentic relationship building that viewers crave.

Producers could even serve to de-emphasize polished narratives, a huge stepping stone in Love Island’s casting, to elevate the show from a platform of existing influencers to a genuine pursuit of love as the show was intended to be.

This season’s rise in dramatics may not only be due to the islanders but also the streaming platforms’ tendency to favor dramatic reality TV shows.

Producers and editors strictly shape the season’s tone behind the scenes. They observe villa dynamics, identify potential storylines and even guide conversations to “craft the narrative.”

In post-production, they actively manipulate perception through selective editing, using reaction shots, cutaways and sound effects to create dramatic arcs that were not as intense in reality.

Nic and Olandria’s recoupling felt manufactured — an unnatural progression exposed as inauthentic when audience rallying pushed it to a central plotline.

This season’s producers further muddled the reality aspect of the show by casting contestants who already knew each other. Chelley knew Ace, Amaya and Andreina, while Ace and Pepe also had a prior connection. Other islanders confirmed that even Nic and Jeremiah were acquainted before entering the villa.

The producers fabricated an environment that wasn’t conducive to authentic relationship building. Most of the islanders this season were influencers or had a strong social media presence, whereas last season people had a broader range of careers from the medical device field to being a snake wrangler. The prerequisite of social media following this season marked a huge setback for this show.

Ultimately, this season veered too far from the show’s romantic roots. When producers prioritize virality over authenticity, love becomes just another subplot in a show that was built around it.

It may have held our attention, but if this trend continues, Love Island USA risks losing the very heart that made audiences fall for it in the first place.

Srijani Chakraborty is a freshman bioengineering student. She can be reached at schak19@terpmail.umd.edu.