“Equal attention cannot be given to either side while they exist within SOAC,” said Saafia Masoom ’20, the current CGVP and SOAC chair. Because the committee is currently responsible for both organizations and appointments on campus, Masoom and other SOAC members have noticed it is common for one to be prioritized over the other, and that this year in particular, “appointments got shoved aside constantly.”

Although Masoom and other members of SOAC saw the change as positive, some members, such as the current organizations coordinator Emily Pearson ’20, believed the first iteration of the proposed change “came completely out of left field.” Pearson expressed her concerns about the initial measure by saying, “it really worried me, because we were talking about huge structural changes.”

The addition of a new cabinet member would erase the need for two appointments coordinators and one organizations coordinator –– students who work under the CGVP. Currently these students are paid approximately $3,000 each from the student activity fee. If a new cabinet member were to be added, they would be paid a $3,000 stipend as a CG cabinet member. The split of SOAC, then, would result in approximately $6,000 of savings.

Pearson was not the only student concerned about the proposed split. In senate, the issue was debated for weeks, and students recalled being confused about the proposal throughout senate’s numerous discussions in senate and concerned about reporting the particulars of the measure and the surrounding debate to their respective constituents.  According to Special Policy and Ethics Committee (SPEC) Chair Avery Lumeng ’21, from her perspective outside the scope of SPEC, “students just didn’t know what was going on when its their money.”

After weeks of discussion on the senate floor, the measure was scheduled to be voted on Monday, March 18, the week of spring break. College Government President Kimberly Chia Yan Min ’19 commented on the selection of the date acknowledging that, “Senate attendance generally declines and this time we are just going to hold ourselves to a pretty high bar.” CG had already scheduled special elections for the CGVP and the potential new cabinet position to be held the week classes resumed after spring break. If CG postponed the vote further, the incoming cabinet would be forced to hold special election next fall. Chia reflected on her own experience joining cabinet late commenting, “I took this one month to learn on the job and I would never wish that on anyone else.”

Once voting was set to begin, however, the Secretary-Treasurer realized that the senate was missing quorum by one person. For a constitutional vote to take place in senate, three-fourths of the voting body must be physically present. According to the senate minutes from March 18, one senator was sick with the flu and couldn’t be physically present. However the CG Constitution stipulates that all members must be physically present for quorum to stand. Therefore, the senator in question could not vote via Facetime.

Upon this realization, a senator who was physically present informed the body that another senator no longer represented their organization and thus quorum could be met. The Secretary-Treasurer verified that quorum was met, and the vote could proceed as planned. According to the senate minutes, the vote passed with 68 percent of senate voting in favor of the measure.

Once news of the vote rippled through campus, students and senators alike recalled feeling uncomfortable with the way the vote passed. “As a student-at-large, I felt uneasy about it. I had some questions about it,” said Lumeng, outside of her capacity as SPEC chair.

Pearson, while not at senate on the night of the vote, also questioned the legitimacy of the vote because of the lack of clarity in the senate minutes and private conversations she had had with senators present. According to Pearson, a number of senators felt confused about the vote itself, and were “unsettled by the way that it happened.”

Pearson’s uneasiness regarding the vote persisted throughout spring break, compelling her to propose a referendum to the student body the Saturday before classes resumed. According to the College Government Constitution, any student may propose a referendum on a senate measure within two weeks of the initial vote — the deadline for the SOAC measure was April 1, that following Monday. If a referendum collects 200 signatures, the student body will then vote on the measure by a simple majority. In the event that the student body reverses the senate vote, senate may not reconsider the measure until the next academic year. The only guidance Wellesley students have is the current constitution since Wellesley has never held a campus-wide referendum.

Pearson’s decision to propose a referendum was immediately met with controversy. Chief Justice Maya Nandakumar ’19 views this petition as “having misrepresented an issue in order to deceive students into signing a document that would trigger a vote.” She takes further issue with Pearson’s use of the referendum, given that it requires students to vote on the issue and not the legitimacy of the vote itself.

While Pearson did not have qualms with the measure itself, she justified proposing a referendum, commenting, “I can genuinely say that this decision came from the frustration around how it [the vote] happened … but there was no other mechanism in place,” to contest how the vote was passed on March 18.

On Monday April 1, Pearson received the 200th signature on her proposal. In light of that, Chia invited Pearson to senate for its open discussion portion. At the time, Chia justified inviting Pearson to senate explaining, “A referendum is happening and we also know that she is the one who sent it out.” She also felt that inviting Pearson to speak would be “an opportunity for the conversation about the referendum to happen in a public space and [in] the space where it was passed.” However, when Chia invited Pearson to speak, she did not anticipate the level of personal investment students had in the discussion and in hindsight wishes she kept a better handle on the conversation.

During the open discussion –– which was recorded verbatim in the senate minutes –– students present addressed Pearson’s issues with the March 18 vote as well as larger internal problems affecting CG. The main lingering issues were SPEC’s role in monitoring CG’s actions and the ethics of CG cabinets’ perceived lack of partiality. In regards to the how SPEC monitors the ethics of CG, the CG Constitution is unclear on where the committee stands. SPEC is largely considered to be the body which ensures CG government remains ethical in its policymaking processes. However, there is not much guidance for SPEC in the CG Constitution, so its focus can change with each new administration. Given the lack of guidance, Lumeng explains that she uses her position to “give the constitutional guidance of what’s going on” in a CG vote.  

However, SPEC’s role in the vote and the subsequent referendum has been called into question because of implicit and explicit biases senators may have when representing their respective constituencies. Lumeng claims that this issue is not new and is something SPEC has been concerned about internally. “We’ve been talking for years about how SPEC is not impartial and has serious problems being unbiased. And now its kind of coming out and it showed up in the minutes from Monday,” commented Lumeng.

Lumeng is not alone in her sentiment. Pearson is also concerned about SPEC’s place in monitoring CG ethics, especially in huge policies decisions such as the split of SOAC, given the fact that all present senators had to vote on the measure. “I don’t think that’s an appropriate way. We are seeing now why that’s not a good idea,” said Pearson.

In the same vein, students also questioned how senators vote for any measure. According to the minutes from April 1, a senator commented, that she “felt there was pressure for senators to vote a certain way, with the idea in mind that our constituents don’t know what’s going on, so we have to vote for them”. After reading the senator’s concerns in the minutes from April 1, constituents expressed worry about how well their senator represents their constituency given that some claim to feel pressure to vote in a particular way. “Why even vote at House Council if our senators are going to be urged to anonymously vote contrary to us?” questioned member of McAfee House Council Sabene Pleasant ’20.

When asked about this sentiment expressed by the senator in the minutes, Masoom responded in a comment to The Wellesley News that “It’s unfortunate that people felt that way,” however the CG constitution does not instruct senators how to vote, so each senator has developed their own way of voting, whether that is voting exactly as their constituents did or using their best judgement. Masoom continued her sentiment commenting, “I really believe our senators, in their ability to use their best judgement when representing their constituencies. That’s between them and the people they represent.” Nevertheless, CG cabinet was transparent about being in favor of the split since it was first introduced.

After the open discussion, there were still many unanswered questions about how the referendum would be conducted and whether or not the body who informs students on the vote should be impartial. Students present at senate proposed a number of groups conduct the referendum from Pearson herself to CG cabinet to Elections Committee (EC). According to an email sent to the student body on April 3, CG cabinet will be responsible for informing the student body about the referendum. The vote will then be conducted by the Office of Student Involvement on April 10 via electronic form.

Even so, Pearson is worried that CG informing the student body about the vote is problematic because they are publically in support of the measure, and it is thus possible students will only receive a heavily biased view of the proposal. “I’m very worried that [an objective explanation of the proposal is] not what’s going to happen over the course of the week with College Government.”

CG has been transparent about their impartiality regarding the split, explaining to The Wellesley News that “We are not going to pretend to be really neutral about this as people in senate, we are like, it passed and we would like it to pass,” commented Chia. Since the public announcement of the referendum, CG cabinet has made Facebook posts on their personal accounts explaining their support for the measure and ensured that each student receive and spam under their dorm doors regarding the proposed change. According to Wellesley’s current spamming policy, CG is the only organization that is allowed to put spam underneath students’ doors. Typically, this power has been used to inform students about campus-wide events, such as Lake Day, not CG policy proposals. Chia and Masoom stressed that all students are free to campaign for or against the measure. They also invite students to come attend the upcoming information session regarding the measure on Tuesday, April 9 at 8:15 p.m. in the Lulu Cow Chair Room.

With the referendum underway, Chia and Masoom expressed excitement about the level of engagement from students outside of CG. “I feel like so much of what we do, we don’t necessarily feel like people are talking about it or care, so that’s like a significant percentage of the student body and that’s cool,” said Masoom. Chia echoed this sentiment saying, “The fact that 200 people signed this right, and are concerned about something that has to do with our structure, our bureaucracy, that’s great. Honestly, I think that’s great.”

Whereas cabinet and CG expressed that the general student body may not be necessarily interested in CG policies, Pearson feels this is untrue commenting,“I feel like there is this huge idea that students here don’t really care about College Government ideas, and I don’t think that’s true at all and I think that everything that has happened after sending that [the referendum email] has proven that to me.”

In the days since the referendum became public, students from all parts of campus have come out of to voice their opinion on the posed question. For instance, Shafer Residence Assistant (RA) Kavindya Thennakoon ’19 wrote on her Facebook page that she witnessed firsthand the amount of outreach CG –– from attending HoCos to hosting listening sessions –– has done to inform the student body of the change. In her post, Thennakoon addresses students’ concerns about not being represented writing, “if you felt your voice wasn’t heard then maybe YOU [emphasis hers] are the problem here.”

Although there are members of the student body engaged in the conversation, Lumeng questions whether there is enough outreach to students outside of House Councils and organizations with senators. “I think it [CG outreach regarding the proposal] was a lot of cases of reaching out to the people who were already listening.”

Chia believes that the student body is partially responsible for educating itself on CG policy arguing, “What is really important to this is students also need to engage. If you care about an issue, you have to come to these things and meet up. We can put it out there and we can go to students, which we have done, but I think it is like a relationship. It cannot be a one sided relationship.”

Masoom seconded Chia, stating, “We can represent the people who are going to meet us halfway. We can do outreach, but it will only work if people ask questions and hold us accountable.”

Nevertheless, there are questions as to whether the upcoming referendum –– and the events that led up to it –– will inspire votes of this nature to be the norm at Wellesley College. Pearson believes students should directly vote on measures as drastic adding another cabinet member commenting, “An issue of this magnitude where we are literally talking about changing the structure of should be put up to student vote.”

Within CG cabinet, there are varying opinions as to whether restructuring votes should be left to the senate body or the students. According to Chief Justice Nandakumar, “The changes to SOAC are, at their core, routine committee changes. If the entire student body is voting on these then, by the same logic, they should also be voting on all structural changes to a committee. We changed the makeup of Elections Committee in the fall on a structural level similar to this one (i.e., removing cabinet positions from a committee). The question then becomes whether all such changes should be put to a school-wide vote.The existence of the referendum clause in the Constitution is meant to be a mechanism by which the student body can choose which measures they would like to vote on.” If students voted on every structural measure, that would, “essentially negate the purpose of senate,” she explained.

Chia and Masoom were reluctant to provide an answer to this question. Although both members stressed that the current senate has done well to represent their constituencies, Chia expressed, “It’s [the referendum] going to be a big data point that people are going to see to inform future decisions about what kinds of amendments need to be taken in senate and what kinds of amendments should go out to the student body.”

Nevertheless, the vote is now in the hands of the student body and if the student body votes no, CG cannot reconsider the proposal until next year. Whatever the outcome, Chia is adamant that “Whatever is the decision of the referendum, it is going to stand.”

Rather than a petty temper tantrum by this season’s lead, the jump was actually a crack in the extremely polished and fantastical Bachelor universe. After having his heart broken on national television by the season’s runner up, speech pathologist Cassie Randolph, Colton claimed to be the done with show and the process, throwing his microphone on the floor and punching one of the several cameras constantly shoved in his face. While I do think that Colton was definitely pushed over the fence by Cassie’s, albeit unsurprising, exit, I think Colton’s main motivation was to get away from his ultimate betrayers, the producers of “The Bachelor.”

According to the edited narrative of the show, Colton jumped the fence after Cassie confessed that she wasn’t in love with him and did not see herself getting engaged at the end of filming. Although Colton insisted they didn’t need to get engaged, Cassie was steadfast in her decision, especially after talking to her father –– who was flown by production to Portugal from California –– right before the evening portion of the date.

As soon as Cassie informed Colton of the conversation with her father, there is a key moment all commentators reference: Colton makes eye contact with production clearly “blindsided” –– I have to use Bachelor vocabulary in this recap ––  by this revelation from Cassie. Production flying Cassie’s dad from California to talk her out of an engagement was the ultimate betrayal for Colton because he thought production was looking out for his best interests. In reality, they were looking for the best ratings.

Production has done shady things to contestants and leads alike in the past. No one can ever forget the now infamous unedited breakup between Season 22 Bachelor Arie Luyendyk Jr. and winner Becca Kufrin. Kufrin had no idea about the breakup even while production silently set up for the televised moment in front of her. Arie and Becca’s filmed breakup was quite controversial because Becca was unaware that Arie and production orchestrated the moment behind her back. After this moment however, a precedent was set for more “raw and unedited” moments on the show which at this point has become predictable and formulaic.

Contrary to the belief of some, I think that Colton’s breakup with Cassie and the subsequent jump was the most real I have ever seen the show. Never in Bachelor history has a lead broke with protocol and confessed to a contestant two weeks before the proposal that he had made up his mind. While Colton might have said that in an act of desperation to keep Cassie on the show, he was still being very real in my opinion. After she rebuffed him and left, the Bachelor continued to spiral and took all his anger out on the production team he felt had betrayed him.

In the Bachelor universe, it is normal for leads and contestants to do interviews with production for hours after breakups happen. Given that Colton refused to talk to production, ripped off his mic and literally jumped a fence, it was evident that he was really quitting. This action gave us a glimpse of the behind the scenes people who make this fantasy possible. Given the ratings for that episode alone, it is clear “the jump heard around the world” smashed the Bachelor facade and now us, the audience, only craves the most real footage rather than the same vanilla-manufactured love stories. Who knows where the Bachelor franchise can go from here? I am more than ready to find out.

Last week, it was announced that three of Grande’s songs from her most recent album, “Thank U, Next,” claimed the top spots on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart, a feat only ever achieved by the Pop Rock legends The Beatles. Given this amazing accomplishment, many are questioning how Grande was able to achieve this, especially since a lot of critics find her music to not be anything special.

According to a critic from NBC News, Grande was able to capture the top three spots on the Billboard Hot 100 because of the accounting system used to place songs on the chart. Today, the most popular songs are tracked by physical record sales, streaming, digital downloads and Youtube views whereas in the 1960s, when the Beatles achieved the same feat, Billboard only relied on physical record sales. Although Grande did have an advantage in having multiple music platforms counted in the ranking, the fact that she was able to capture the attention of so many in a content-saturated market is an astounding feat. Today, we have so many listening options at our fingertips. Why are people gravitating towards Ariana Grande in particular? Throughout 2018, she was a fixture in the media. From the tragic death of her ex-boyfriend rapper Mac Miller to her whirlwind romance –– and then break-up –– with SNL cast member, Pete Davidson. All the while, she was constantly posting on social media and making herself and her creative process accessible to millions. Although people were constantly writing about her in the media, she was still able to control her persona by being a constant presence on social media.

Social media presence seems to be in the job description for celebrities these days. In order to stay relevant, a star must be constantly posting so that their fans can get glimpses of their seemingly glamorous life. Social media also gives stars insight into what fans and the public are talking about. Clearly, Grande has used this to her advantage. For instance, in her video for “Thank U, Next,” Grande styled her video to the iconic early 2000s movie Mean Girls and featured major celebrities such as Kris Jenner. Both Mean Girls and Jenner are staples in 2010’s meme and internet culture. Clearly, if those elements are present in her videos, people will be interested in watching the videos on Youtube –– which is counted for in the Billboard Hot 100.

None of this is to discount the talent Grande clearly has. While I personally don’t think Grande’s songs are groundbreaking, I will admit that they are quite catchy and her vocalizing is rather impressive. She has definitely cemented herself as a vocalizer akin to legends like Mariah Carey and Celine Dion. Nevertheless, it is rather impressive that she has and continues to capture the attention of people in an age where attention spans are shorter than ever. The ability to make an “Ari-mania” in this day and age is impressive, to say the least. I wonder if any other stars will break the record in the near future.

The most highly anticipated battle in the final season of Game of Thrones will be between the living and the dead. Throughout the series, the zombie-like creatures known as White Walkers, lead by the demonic Night King, have been a looming, yet distant, threat in Westeros. However, now that the magical wall separating Westeros from the Walker-infested North has come down –– without any suspense and all characters almost certainly surviving –– the much-hyped “Battle for the Dawn” has finally arrived. Showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss have hired director Miguel Sapochnik –– famous for his work on episodes “Hardhome” and “Battle of the Bastards” –– to direct two of the final season’s six episodes, leading many to believe the last installment will be heavy on epic battle scenes and light on character moments. While I do love battle sequences –– “Battle of the Bastards” is one of my favorite television episodes ever –– I am apprehensive that the showrunners’ emphasis on epic battle sequences will come at the expense of the narrative complexity which helped make the show the cultural phenomenon it is, an unfortunate trend already seen in season seven. For example, in the final moments of the last season, “Game of Thrones” used the vast majority of its exorbitant budget to give stunning, instantly gratifying visual effects that did nothing for the plot.

Most information about the upcoming season has been pure speculation based off fan theories and purported “leaks” from set. Benioff and Weiss have been extremely secretive about the upcoming season. According to Emilia Clarke, who plays Daenerys Targaryen, the fan favorite “Mother of Dragons,” the cast filmed multiple endings so even they would not know how the show actually ends. “I think they’re filming a bunch of stuff and they’re not telling us. I’m being serious. I’m being deadly serious. I think that they don’t even trust us,” said Clarke in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter. The one thing several “Game of Thrones” actors have said in interviews is that the ending is definitely bittersweet and will not satisfy everyone. Iain Glen (Ser Jorah) told The Hollywood Reporter “You know with something this big like “Game of Thrones,” you cannot please everyone.” While Glen is correct in saying that finales rarely please all the viewers, I hope it doesn’t disappoint viewers by appealing too much to fan service.

The final season will only be six episodes long, as opposed to the 10-episode length of all the other seasons save season seven, which had seven episodes. However, these last episodes will also include some of the longest “Game of Thrones” episodes to date, including a finale on the shorter side of feature-film length at a reported 81 minutes. While this may seem exciting to some fans (more content yay!) it is likely that the longer runtimes will be used for special effects and blockbuster battle sequences rather than character and plot development. For example, in season seven, Benioff and Weiss decided to focus on show-stopping effects and easy plot twists that would garner the most reaction on social media rather than further developing the complex characters and intricate plotlines that had been carefully cultivated over six seasons. For instance in episode five, “Eastwatch” “Fellowship of the Wight” the writers threw together fan favorites Jon Snow (Kit Harington), Gendry (Joe Dempsie), The Hound (Rory McCann), Tormund (Kristofer Hivju), Ser Jorah (Iain Glen), Lord Beric (Richard Dormer) and Thoros of Myr (Paul Kaye) to go on a “suicide mission” north of the wall to capture a walker. While providing viewers with witty one-liners and meme-worthy bro content, it did nothing for character development and completely disregarded Game of Throne’s penchant for realistically killing off characters –– only Thanos died, and we weren’t that attached to him. While I think casual fans of the show will not be fazed by this change of direction, more avid fans –– especially readers of the books –– will be disappointed.

There is currently not a lot of information out about the final season, so most of my analysis should be taken with a grain of salt. While I am disappointed with the direction of last season, I am cautiously optimistic that the final season will be good. Hopefully, we don’t get a cheesy superhero/martyr movie ending –– where the heroes sacrifice themselves and miraculously survive –– and get something clever and utterly brutal, like the “Game of Thrones” of old. Perhaps it’s time for another wedding?

One of the most useful tools on class groups is the digest option. One of the largest complaints students voice about emails is the large number they receive every day. On average, Wellesley students receive upwards of 50 emails per day, which can be very overwhelming. Since Wellesley has a pervasive stress culture, it can be stress-inducing for students to receive countless emails asking them to join clubs, attend events and apply for committees. One of the best ways for students to limit the number of emails –– given the communication system we have now –– would be to use the digest feature on Google Groups. Class digest consolidates 25 class emails into a single one. Instead of receiving 50 emails a day, one would simply receive two or three. Although one of the drawbacks would be not receiving information about everything happening on campus the moment it is sent, you can still catch up if you go on the Google groups page. If you are interested in attending an open meeting or watching drama unfold on class groups, you simply need to type in a url.

Another way email stress could be curtailed in the long term would be through the restriction of email-related power — meaning only designated people would possess the means to email the entire school. Wellesley’s email power is rare on a college campus; most students at other schools do not have the power to email the entire student body. One of the solutions proposed by students for years is to give solely organization-affiliated emails the power to email the classes. Ideally, these emails would abide by the spamming rules of the Senate Special Ethics Committee (SPEC) and only email the student body when necessary. While concerns have been raised about transitions after students graduate, it seems like a better method of communication than having a plethora of students emailing the entire student body with no regulation. If one student or group of students were in charge of sending emails for an org, students could then filter through emails easier. By granting fewer students the power to email the entire class, we can lessen stress. If students need to report missing items, they can then go on the different class pages on social media or use another platform.

While Wellesley’s Google Groups is a cultural phenomena, it seems to exacerbate stress instead of provide entertainment or information. If there are ways to take care of students’ mental health, then we should take advantage of them. If limiting the number of emails or giving orgs and admins only the power to email accomplishes the aforementioned task, we should do just that. For right now, I encourage students to use features like the digest to help manage email stress. Ultimately however, we need a cleaner system. Let’s save the lost one card conversations for Facebook.

Over the next few years, I spent a lot of time being mad at Wellesley for not giving me “the college experience” to which I felt entitled. I didn’t realize that there was such an intense stress culture, that I would feel very isolated and alone in a small Massachusetts town which seemed wholly separated from the Wellesley College community. I didn’t expect to feel such a disconnect between the student body and the administration. I truly felt alone. Often during these periods of deep sadness and anger, I would ask myself: if I had known, would I have still chosen Wellesley?

Over the summer, a student posted a video on her YouTube channel in which she lists “5 Bad Things About Wellesley College.” In her video, she highlights common criticisms made by current students such as the stress culture, the lack of a social scene, isolation, the dining plan and the lack of institutional support for marginalized groups. Although the student acknowledged that Wellesley is still a great school and that there is a lot to appreciate about it, she felt that there was no outlet where students could have important conversations about Wellesley’s problems. In her video the student articulates, “None of [the administration] talked about [the problems], and I just thought I had a channel. I know something. I want to warn people.” Immediately after the video was uploaded onto her channel, the video received a lot of positive reception and was shared widely on social media. It was then posted on the Class of 2022 Facebook page by a current student. Subsequently, the video was taken down by the administration “for being inaccurate and not being a reflection of everyone’s experience.”

After the video was taken off the page, many students questioned the actions of the administration. Was it ethical for a post to be deliberately removed from a public platform? Does the incoming class have the right to know about Wellesley’s problems before arriving on campus? Where should these conversations about Wellesley’s problems happen if not on social media? Based on my viewing of the video, the student’s intention was not to scare off incoming or prospective students. Rather, she simply wanted to give them a realistic description of Wellesley College that is not well-known until one becomes a student here. The school attempting to censor this student content is not only problematic in the fact that they immediately discredited the experience of this student at Wellesley, it was also an active attempt by the administration to conceal critiques of Wellesley from the incoming class. While it may be controversial to publicize a school’s problems before a student even comes to campus, it is important to allow people to have a comprehensive view of a school before they decide to come. Choosing a school is a big decision that affects a student for a long time. It would be foolish to commit to a school without knowing all you can about it. Students have to consider potential problems they may encounter and take that into consideration when making their decision. Wellesley is a great place, but it is not for everyone. If knowing about criticisms can save someone from choosing a school that isn’t a good fit for them, isn’t it worth it?

It is important to acknowledge however, that the administration has made an effort to address the issues students have with Wellesley. For example, the on-campus party, Remix, was hosted again after a two-year hiatus. New employees in the Office of Residential Life have also been looking into ways to create a vibrant social community on campus. Although these efforts are commendable, students still have the right to speak freely about problems on campus because the only way they will be solved is if we speak about them openly and honestly. The student’s video reached a wide online audience and initiated difficult conversations about honesty in the admissions process, as well as what Wellesley College can do to better the community that a lot of students have a complex relationship with.

I ask myself a lot if I would have chosen Wellesley if a similar video existed when I was a prospective or incoming student. As of now, I think I still would have chosen Wellesley because I wished to forge a college experience on my terms. Of all the things I have learned here, the most important—and hardest—lesson was that college is what you make of it. In the context of Wellesley, I have come to accept that it isn’t perfect, and college is not what I imagined in high school. It shouldn’t be. However, looking at it from a holistic perspective rather than a heavily biased one taught me that. It was something that I had to figure out on my own, but I think it has made me stronger.

The case of Sessions v. Dimaya involves a Filipino immigrant, James Garcia Dimaya, who has lived in the United States as a legal permanent resident since 1992. In 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted of two counts of firstdegree residential burglary. According to the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), any immigrant who is convicted of an aggravated felony which includes a “crime of violence” is deportable. Since Dimaya had two counts of burglary on his record, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided to initiate deportation proceedings against him. Dimaya’s lawyers argued that the term “crimes of violence” was too vague and gave immigration courts too much discretion in deciding which crimes fall under that classification.

In the majority opinion for the court, Justice Kagan wrote that the statute did not provide a sufficient explanation for what constitutes a “crime of violence”; therefore, it gave courts too much discretion. She also pointed out that the court had already heard a case with similar facts, Johnson v. United States (2015), in which the classification of a violent crime was unconstitutionally vague and thus struck down. What makes this case especially interesting is the intersection of immigration law — which is technically civil law enforced under the executive branch — and criminal law — which is enforced through the judicial branch. Since immigration law is enforced by the executive branch, it receives little oversight from other branches of government. Therefore, it uses a lot of discretion in enforcement and policy making. Given the amount of unilateral power the executive branch has in immigration enforcement, it is unsurprising that Gorsuch voted the way he did. Instead of participating in the majority opinion, he decided to write a concurring opinion in which he agreed only in part with the majority. In this opinion, he said that he agreed with the vagueness of the statute; however, his reason for his vote had more to do with curtailing executive power than social justice for immigrants.

Gorsuch is known as a hardline conservative on many issues. He considers himself to be a strict constitutionalist, meaning he does not believe that the constitution is open to interpretation. Therefore, he interprets the constitution as the founders would have when they drafted it in 1789. For example, according to a popular legal blog, SCOTUSblog, Judge Gorsuch would vote 100 percent of the time with the most conservative justice, Clarence Thomas. In his previous opinions, he has opposed gay marriage and defended open carry as well as the use of public funds for religious schools. Given his voting record, it is clear that he is not interested in expanding rights for immigrants. Rather, he is more interested in keeping the federal government’s power limited. In the past he has voted to further damage these rights. For example, in a recent court case, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Gorsuch voted to allow the detention of immigrants indefinitely without the periodic bail hearings. Given that he voted to limit fifth amendment due process rights for immigrants, he is not concerned with their treatment in our crimmigration system—the intersections between criminal and immigration law. It is possible that he saw the indefinite detention as appropriate because it gave discretion to individual judges about whether or not to release detained immigrants on bail. This example proves that he is more concerned with limiting the power of the government than with immigrant rights.

In his concurring opinion, Gorsuch wrote, “vague laws invite arbitrary power.” He believes that the statute should outline exactly what is considered a crime, which is a view directly in line with his strict approach to constitutional interpretation. In my opinion, Gorsuch couldn’t care less about the conditions of immigrants. While his vote in this case was a victory for immigrant activists, I wouldn’t consider him an ally in the slightest.

In this vein of activism, on March 27, former Associate Justice to the Supreme Court John Paul Stevens wrote an opinions piece in The New York Times in which he made a radical proposal: repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This suggestion was met with controversy because it seemed to be an unrealistic goal that would never be passed by the American legislature. According to journalist Aaron Blake at The Washington Post, Stevens’ op-ed was “about the most unhelpful thing” because it falls”… into the Republican talking point that this is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates, which is to take away guns, to not have gun ownership be a right, to repeal the Second Amendment.”

Blake is correct in saying that Justice Stevens’ piece would incite fear amongst the conservative right. A March 2018 Gallup poll reported that 67 percent of Americans believe that gun laws should be stricter than they are now. Yet in the minds of some Second Amendment supporters, making access to guns more difficult is the start of eventually banning them all together. Since the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, it is equated with each American’s individual freedom, meaning that if you cannot buy a gun, you are not free. While Justice Stevens’ proposal is commendable and ideal, our polarized political culture and people’s perception of what it means to be free would need to change for the repeal of the Second Amendment to become a reality in the United States.

First, we would need to solve the gridlock in Congress. Even before the controversial election of President Donald Trump, it has been nearly impossible to work across party lines and draft bipartisan legislation. Since the Parkland shooting, politicians claim to have heard the cries of the Parkland survivors and their allies and have promised to pass gun legislation to make communities safer. However, this has not been a bipartisan endeavor. On the contrary, Republican politicians still receiving campaign funding from the National Rifle Association (NRA) have proposed laws that make communities feel less safe, including arming school teachers. Democrats who lack the numbers in Congress to pass anything substantial, have also been reluctant to propose radical legislation that would regulate the gun industry out of fear of further alienating American gun carriers. Another huge factor which inhibits the passage of gun reform in the United States is the relentless lobbying by the NRA. Since its founding, it has bought the votes of politicians and embarked on a campaign to make the Second Amendment about the preservation of freedom rather than the safety of communities. According to former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger, the NRA has committed “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” By using its powerful platform, the NRA further perpetuates the bipartisan gridlock in Congress. Given the amount of gridlock in Congress and the strong presence of the gun lobby in Washington, it seems unlikely that change will come from our government at this time. Based on Gallup’s March 2018 poll, which reports only a 15 percent approval rating of Congress across the country, it seems like the American people agree. Until both political parties are able to work together, it is highly unlikely that the Second Amendment will be repealed.

In order for an Amendment to be made to the constitution or for an amendment to be repealed, we need two-thirds of Congress to propose the change and then three-fourths of the state legislatures to approve the proposal. Another option is for two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to propose Amendments, which has never happened before. Given the amount of bipartisanship in our government today, it seems impossible for Stevens’ idea to even be introduced on the House and Senate floors. In the event that this happens, we would then need 38 states to approve the amendment, which is also a daunting task. Since the founding of the United States, only 27 Amendments have been passed. The only amendment to be repealed was the 18th amendment, which established prohibition. With significant mobilization, it might be possible for the repeal of the Second Amendment to get to the second phase of state approval; however, that would not guarantee its passage. For example, in the 1970s, it was thought that the Equal Rights Amendment would pass. Yet it fell three states short of the ¾ majority of state legislatures it needed to pass. Given the historic difficulty of passing Amendments, the chances of the Second Amendment being appealed are extremely low.

In order for there to be even a chance of actually repealing the Second Amendment, gun ownership would have to cease being equated with personal freedom in the U.S., a nearly unimaginable task. Due to lobbying by groups such as the NRA, a significant number of Americans believe that gun regulation is a direct restriction of their personal freedom. Opponents of gun reform routinely claim that ownership of guns is a fundamental right that cannot and should not be infringed upon because America’s founders enshrined “the right to bear arms” in The Bill of Rights.

What these opponents fail to see, however, is that the Second Amendment is an outdated law that was intended only for maintaining “a well regulated militia” that would defend the country if deemed necessary. However, overtime the courts began to rule in favor of an individual’s right to own a firearm. For example, in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to own a firearm is protected outside of the regulated militia. According to Justice Stevens, “That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power”. Individual citizens owning guns is not a well-regulated militia. Given that the ownership of guns is ingrained into many people’s understanding of their own personal freedom, how can we change that sentiment?

I currently struggle to imagine a world in which guns don’t exist. Growing up in Texas, gun culture was part of my everyday life. I understand that gun sports such as hunting and target shooting are a big part of people’s lives and that when politicians propose taking guns, it could seem like they are trying to take away something intrinsic to a gun owner’s identity and freedom as an American. One way we could bridge this divide would be to make it very clear that our goal is to protect people’s right to live free of gun violence, which has been pervasive in our society. There is no need for assault rifles in hunting and target shooting. We simply wish to take away the guns that threaten human life. People should not be free to own weapons that have caused so much pain and death.

Although I find it difficult to envision our nation without guns, I do see a way in which those who have guns for hunting or sport keep them in their own possession. For example, filmmaker Michael Moore proposed that we reword the Second Amendment to fit the needs of America today by writing, “A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of nonautomatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.” As Moore states in his proposed Amendment, we need to equate the right to be free from gun violence with vital individual freedoms and not with the ownership of weapons. While using Moore’s proposal and still allowing people to hunt and use guns for sport, because we can’t realistically take that away, no matter how much we may want to, we would come to an ideal compromise, that allows for people to continue enjoying their guns while also preserving and protecting human life, which is of paramount importance.

The only way that Justice Stevens’ proposal has a chance of becoming reality is if we as a nation change the way we interpret the Second Amendment and the place of firearms in our national culture. Due to extensive lobbying by the NRA, gun rights have become so ingrained into the fabric of our society that the right to have a gun has been conflated with personal freedom. If we no longer equate the ownership of a weapon with individual liberty, then we can finally do something about this issue which has led to so many tragic deaths.

Although the Malaysian government claims to have passed this law out of concern for maintaining journalistic integrity, critics believe that the real reason is to suppress government opposition. In the past year, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has been shrouded in scandal amidst accusations that he took money from a Malaysian government fund and purchased assets for himself and his family. Given that elections for Prime Minister are to occur this year, critics of the law are concerned that Razak passed the law to control coverage about his administration prior to the elections.

Another concern surrounding the passage of this law is that the term “fake news” is not well defined. Coined by then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. election, the term was mainly used to criticize news sources that were critical of Trump and his hateful policy proposals. If the term is to be used in the same vein by the Malaysian government, then it would be more difficult for journalists to publish articles that question the government out of fear that their reporting will be considered “fake news” and that they will subsequently be prosecuted. According to an article in The New York Times from April 2, Jailani Johari, Malaysia’s deputy minister for communications and multimedia, defines fake news as “ any information…that has not been verified by the government.” If the Malaysian government is making itself responsible for validating news sources meant to hold the government accountable, then the press will not have freedom of speech, which is essential for a democracy. As seen in the case of Malaysia, government intervention in the media is viewed by critics as a possible restriction on free speech and objective reporting. It should be the job of people and groups outside of the government to discern what is reliable information and what is not.

Malaysia is not the only country that has drafted legislation pertaining to the regulation of “fake news.” Similarly, countries such as India, The United Kingdom and France have begun to draft legislation which they claim is geared towards fighting the tide of “fake news” that seems to have become increasingly prevalent in our society. While the intentions of these governments may not be malicious, critics such as journalists and members of watchdog organizations find it curious that leaders are suddenly concerned about this issue, even though “fake news” has been published for ages. In an opinions piece published on wired.com, the University of East Anglia Lecturer Paul Bernal claims that “The whole idea of fake news has been around pretty much forever… it goes back to at least the 15th century.” Since “fake news” has existed for centuries, why is it now necessary for governments to actively intervene?

The most obvious answer is the emergence of the Trump era’s war on facts. The 2016 U.S. presidential election is infamous because of the large amounts of “fake news” that were shared on social media outlets, such as Facebook. Given that many believe “fake news” was a significant factor in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, it is reasonable for people to want some type of regulation of this information. However, government intervention would simply restrict the free speech of the media, especially in countries that already have shoddy records with press free speech to begin with.

Instead of governments passing legislation to regulate “fake news,” determining the accuracy of information should be the responsibility of media outlets, third party watchdogs and the general public. One of the best ways to regulate the flow of correct information would be for watch dogs, such as Politifact or Newswatch, to partner with news outlets and social media companies — where many people get their news — to distinguish between trusted and not trusted media outlets.

Another way for “fake news” to be combatted is by readers themselves. The media exists to keep people informed on current events, and readers should make an effort to fact check what they read. Whether this is through reading multiple publications to obtain news or being a frequent visitor to fact checking sites, readers have the ability to discern for themselves what is reliable news. If the government is telling the readers of the news what is to be considered “fake,” what would ensue would be a sort of “groupthink” that the government can use to control what is made public and what is kept secret. This approach could then open the doors for government officials to censure unfavorable press and could lead to more assaults on free speech.

To be sure, there is a lot of false information that is published, and with the rise of social media, it has become far easier for “fake news” to spread. Yet, it is the price that we should be willing to pay for the right to free speech. The law in Malaysia capitalizes on the anxieties of the people in light of a traumatic U.S. election, but it does not address what is truly best for its people. This law uses fear as an excuse to regulate free speech by deeming whatever the government doesn’t like “fake news.” In doing so, it takes away the power of the people and the media to discern fake news from real news and makes it more dangerous for a democratic system to thrive.

Prior to this change, there were five subcommittees within the Board of Trustees: Investment Responsibility, Finance, Admissions and Financial Aid, Landscapes and Buildings and Student Life. According to Secretary to the Board of Trustees Marianne Cooley, the Board saw fit to change the structure of the Board of Trustees because it wished to focus more on insight and foresight rather than oversight in its work for the college.

“The Wellesley board has been a notably high performing board, and they are seeking to take something that is already good and make it better. The Board of Trustees believed that they needed to shift the focus of their work to a more strategic level in order to be more effective in serving the College’s mission,” said Cooley.

As student appointments coordinators, Pearson and Ehrlich worked with Cooley, Dean of Students Sheila Horton and Associate Dean of Students Carol Bate to ensure that students who are appointed to serve on the newly formed subcommittees will retain a primary voice in the restructured subcommittees.

“Dean Horton held a meeting with the College Government Vice President, (CGVP), the College Government President (CGP), the House Presidents Council (HPC) President and us to discuss the changes, and from there, we worked closely with the Dean’s office to ensure that student voice remains prevalent on the various Trustees committees,” said Pearson and Ehrlich in a joint interview.

With the change, there will be now be three committees: The Wellesley Experience, the Campus and Finance Committee and Wellesley in the World. While the first two committees are consolidations of older committees, the third is the only committee with a new focus.

According to Esme Stribling Hough ’20, a student representative of the newly formed Wellesley in the World Committee—a committee responsible for examining Wellesley’s presence on campus, among alums and in the wider world—student representatives serving on the subcommittees were aware that changes were being made to the structure as of this fall. As a result, the meetings began later than in previous years.

“We were told this fall that they were rearranging, which is why this meeting was a little bit later than they usually like to have it, ” said Stribling-Hough.

The changes to the subcommittees were recommended by the Board of Governance—a standing committee within the Board of Trustees responsible for the maintenance and governing logistics of the Board—after extensive consultations with President Paula Johnson, an outside expert on board governance and the trustees themselves. Based on the information they gathered from the aforementioned sources, the Board of Governance decided that the best way for the board to operate would be as small focus groups modeled after seminars as opposed to large meetings where information largely flowed from staff to trustees.

“They discussed the idea that their board discussions would need to resemble ‘flipped classrooms’ or seminars so that they would be well prepared to engage in deeper discussions in committees,” said Cooley.

As a student representative serving on a committee, Stribling-Hough believes that the new system is inclusive of all attendees, especially students.

“I really appreciate that everyone gets a role. I was really nervous my first meeting because President Johnson is there among all of the leaders, and I was concerned that maybe we were just there for show, but they really gave us a chance to speak and voice our opinions and really contribute to the conversation, which was really great,” commented Stribling-Hough.

Before the changes were implemented, trustee members were invited to sit on committees they did not serve on. According to the research conducted by the Board of Governance, serving members felt this tradition of observation impeded free conversation amongst members.

“Wellesley has had a long history in which all trustees who do not sit on a particular committee still attend the meeting to observe and listen to committee discussions. Committee members believed that while this created a Board of Trustees that was well educated overall regarding the College’s business, the number of people in the committee room inhibited candid discussion. Our experience at the first meetings with the new structure appears to confirm that hypothesis,” commented Cooley.

According to Stribling-Hough, although discussion is encouraged and cultivated, students must still voice their concerns strategically.

“I think we can speak carefully. I think there’s a responsibility to form your words thoughtfully, but I don’t think there is anything necessarily off the table. We just have to be responsible to state the concern not the emotion behind the concern,” said Stribling-Hough.

While the consolidation of subcommittees has been reported to maximize productivity, there was a concern that student voice would be limited because fewer students would be serving on committees. Students serving on dissolved committees were offered positions on the new committees. All students were placed on new committees, except for Pearson who is currently serving as a SOAC Appointments Coordinator.

“Emily Pearson decided to step down from her seat since it may have been seen as a conflict of interest for her to remain on the Board due to her position as one of the SOAC Appointments Coordinators,” said Ehrlich.