In 2019, many students were left without housing, and some students were forced to be housed in basement study spaces that were later converted into dorm rooms. The 2019 housing debacle spawned a larger conversation about housing issues and the need for renovations in dorm halls, which could have been a factor in the college’s decision to create the long-term dorm renovation plan underway today. However, despite improvements to residential life, issues like this week’s housing shortage continue to highlight the major ways in which housing at Wellesley is not built for students. 

We have seen Wellesley making major strides in developing our crumbling dorm infrastructure, and students applauded the renovations to Tower Court. However, while the college now works to improve its infrastructure, it fails to support students living in its housing.

The administrative staff in residential life at Wellesley has long operated as a business rather than supporting students. Financially independent students at Wellesley, whose permanent address is the College, were previously given housing through winter and summer breaks. Those students, otherwise homeless during breaks, were told abruptly in 2024 that they would no longer be eligible for summer housing. Despite independent students being charged the full cost of summer housing and buildings having vacant spaces, the policy has not been reversed explicitly. These students consider Wellesley their full-time home while attending, but have been thrown to the curb by residential life. Even student deans, who know the depths of students’ personal lives, have been unable to persuade residential life to make exceptions. 

In the past, all students could request summer and winter housing due to extenuating circumstances. “Gap housing” used to allow students to stay in their summer housing after their summer classes ended, sometimes because of an unsafe or unstable home environment or other unfortunate circumstances. Now, Residential Life no longer accommodates exceptions to their summer housing terms and they do not explicitly offer break or gap housing to students with extenuating circumstances. When I have attempted to request exceptions to the housing rules, I often received rude, dismissive and passive-aggressive emails from the residential life team, and few students have been granted exemptions to the new rules.

Students who do get the opportunity to stay in summer housing often end up regretting it. While AC in the past has been seen as an unnecessary luxury, global warming has made summers in Massachusetts more extreme. Intense heat waves raised the temperature in my summer dorm room to over 90 degrees for multiple days straight. This caused both my elderly cat and me to experience symptoms of heat stroke and dehydration. The only solution given by residential life was to sleep in common spaces, which often do not have enough space to house all students and also would not allow my cat. Despite the likelihood of temperatures and heat waves getting even worse over the next few decades due to climate change, the college has not added air conditioning to any of its dorm remodeling projects. 

It doesn’t end at misplaced, overheated and unhoused students who suffer from residential life decisions. Graduating seniors like me have to move out by 5 pm the day of graduation, while past seniors had more time to move out of their rooms.  After four years of hard work, seniors deserve to have at least more time to spend with their families and celebrate their graduation before rushing to pack or get on a plane just hours after they walk the stage. One day is not a huge ask, and Residential Life’s ridiculous timeline is lacking empathy or recognition of graduates’ feelings.

Many treasured social dorms and student spaces are left nowhere to be found after remodeling. The Tower Court apartments–a go-to place for students to relax, host events, and loosen up– have been turned into residential offices and non-private community spaces. While blocks used to allow students to build their own private communities on campus, the new block design is often strategically found in the middle of a large hallway or placed around a room with a Residential Assistant or a House President. This change chipped away at “small student-centered communities,” like single-only Beebe 5th-floor upperclassmen, to host private gatherings. Not to mention, themed and group housing such as the substance-free and Walenisi, which used to be on designated dorm floors to provide a safe space for students, were first reduced to smaller blocks or pods, and then disbanded entirely. Not only does this especially damage the ability of Black and POC students to live in communities that make them feel more comfortable, but it also directly goes against students’ needs and wants, promoting a less social and comfortable housing environment. 

What happened to the 40 unhoused students this week said it clearly, the college does not only have a shortage of singles, but of rooms as a whole. The availability of dorms, or the lack of it, has always been a developing issue. In the past, juniors, not only seniors, were guaranteed singles as well. Even though our enrollment has stayed relatively consistent over the last decade, only some lucky juniors can get a single and even a handful of seniors have stories of being forced into doubles despite a policy guaranteeing a single.  

Dower Hall, a small dorm known for spacious rooms and suites that housed up to 40 students, has still not reopened nor been scheduled for remodels. Additionally, Wellesley has subsidized off-campus housing that is offered primarily to faculty. However, this housing has tons of vacancies and is rarely ever fully utilized. Despite this, the college does not offer students the opportunity to rent out of this subsidized housing. Residential life instead operates on a very tight room constraint with almost no vacant rooms, which is an incredibly callous and risky move that leaves students experiencing major room issues, Title IX violations, or roommate problems with little to no opportunity to move. 

Quite frankly, Wellesley does not have enough rooms for its students to operate safely and comfortably. Despite this, it refuses to reopen Dower Hall, subsidize off-campus housing for students, or build new dorm living. It also continues to disrespect its students: dismantling our communities, leaving us with no dorm assignment, kicking out our homeless sibs from dorms, and forcing us to go directly from graduation to a flight across the country. In 2019, students and alumni took the housing crisis as an opportunity to call upon the college to make major changes to the dorms. As another housing crisis is happening, I implore us to call upon residential life itself to change, and lead with empathy and respect for students. Wellesley housing holds our lives, our communities, our Wellesley families and it deserves to be treated as more than a transaction. 

At 7:00 AM on Thursday, Mar. 27, the Office of the Provost announced that many non-tenure-track courses would be reduced in credit from 1 to 0.5. Provost Courney Coile’s plan is aimed at granting students opportunities to continue receiving credit this semester while the strike is ongoing.  As a result, students who fell under the 3-unit minimum, required to be fully enrolled, had to register for additional classes 8 weeks into the semester. 

Students and tenure-track (TT) faculty were made aware of the new academic plan at the same time, with the email announcement sent Thursday morning. 

Tenured faculty and department chairs told the News they were not informed of this plan ahead of time and had to inform the Provost’s Office of whether or not they would open their courses for registration by 6 pm that day.

A tenured professor in a STEM department explained that while faculty had a short Zoom with the Provost, many of their questions were still left unanswered regarding the credit plan.

 “Confusion remains about how theses and independent studies should proceed if students have BUE [bargaining unit employee] advisors or committee members,” they said.

Additionally, many departments could not find time to meet and discuss how to proceed prior to the response deadline. 

“Everyone had a full day of classes and meetings planned already with no open meeting times to call. We tried to triage it over email,” said the STEM professor.  

Nikhil Rao, Associate Professor of History and department chair, elaborated on the confusion among TT faculty on how to proceed.

“I interpreted the Provost’s email, which was addressed to all tenure-stream faculty, to mean that faculty members would decide for themselves whether to admit new students into their courses,” said Rao.

Banu Subramaniam, chair of the Women’s and Gender Studies (WGST) department, shared with WGST students that she was traveling for a talk and meeting out of state when they received the Provost’s message. Subramaniam did not receive a response to a request to the administration for more time. 

The Class Deans told the News that they were similarly informed on Thursday morning, attributing the timing of the notification to the College’s need to roll out the policy so quickly. 

“Given the pace of these developments, the Class Deans were not involved in the planning process,” the Class Deans Office said. 

The office told the News that the Provost’s Office met with the Class Deans on Thursday morning to share the details about the credit changes and registration policy.

Since then, the Class Deans have been in the process of supporting students. 

“[We] have responded to hundreds of student emails, participated in Zoom sessions, held individual meetings, and worked closely with campus partners to gather information and provide guidance.” 

Announcing plans

On Wednesday, Mar. 26, the Registrar’s Office sent a message to students telling them that if the strike began on Thursday, students in classes taught by striking instructors would “receive information from the Provost and the Registrar on Thursday morning about how to proceed.”

After the Provost’s email announcing the credit reduction plan was sent, the Class Deans sent an email at 9:40 AM telling students, “While we do not have all the answers at this moment, please know that we are working closely with campus leadership to navigate this situation as smoothly as possible.” 

In an email statement to the News, a spokesperson for the College stated that the reduced credit plan was put in place to ensure that the College would “be able to demonstrate to various outside agencies that our students are earning credits in a timely way in order to make progress toward their degree.” 

“Since the length of the faculty strike at Wellesley is currently unknown, the College has developed a plan that will be effective no matter what the duration of the strike may be,” the spokesperson said. “The plan must be implemented now for students to have enough contact hours to support the 0.5 credit.”

The College also noted, “We are depending on the tenure-stream faculty to offer these classes and on students to enroll in them.” 

Provost Courtney Coile echoed this statement in another email sent on the evening of Mar. 27. In this email, she stated that the policy was necessary for students to maintain full-time status for financial aid and visa eligibility purposes. 

A difficult choice for faculty 

Faculty reflected on the complicated decision to open up seats in their courses to students. 

A STEM professor described the plan as “an alternate way to make up for replacing labor lost when courses were canceled or put on hold”. They noted that while faculty had a “sense of urgent concern” for students whose financial aid or visa status may be at risk, there was no way for professors to know who these at-risk students are, making it “impossible to know who to make course seats for”.

Echoing this sentiment, a professor of Humanities stated, “I was conflicted between wanting to support my NTT [non-tenure track] colleagues and taking care of our students who are in danger of being deported or losing financial aid.”

Many professors have expressed concerns about the feasibility of adding students to in-progress courses and the increase in workload for tenured faculty. A STEM professor told the News, “There was a strong sense that adding students to classes would be disruptive among faculty who said they didn’t want to do it.”

Subramaniam stated, “There should be a path forward where we honor the legal right of BUE faculty to strike while not imperiling students or adding to the labor of already over-extended tenure-stream faculty.”

Faculty also argued that educational quality was being compromised in the administration’s credit reduction decision.

“A good education is not a collection of random curricular units. All of us have worked together to create an educational plan for you, and you have every right to be able to fulfill those plans,” Subramaniam said. “Forcing you to take an unrelated 0.5 unit course is not a sound solution.”

Implementing plans

The College scheduled course registration for the rest of the semester for Saturday, Mar. 29. On Friday, Mar. 28, the Registrar’s office and Class Deans hosted two drop-in Zoom sessions to answer registration questions. 

The Registrar’s office’s email on Friday night told students, “Later this evening, you will receive an email notifying you that these courses [for Saturday registration] are visible and searchable in Workday.” This notification would also indicate that registration appointments and personalized documents for each student enrolled in a course taught by a non-tenure track faculty member would also be available on Workday. 

At 7:09 AM on Saturday, Dean Shannon Butler-Mokoro sent an email saying that there were “some errors on last night’s communication,” telling students that if they saw errors in their unit status to email the Office of the Registrar, who could fix those issues. 

Registration later that morning was split into three time slots, allowing last-semester seniors, students at risk of falling below 3.0 units for the spring semester to register first at 10:00 AM. The second slot prioritized all other class of 2026 students, and the third slot prioritized all other class of 2027 and 2028 students.  

In Senate on Monday, Mar. 31, Provost Coile updated the community on Saturday’s registration. 

“After registration, only 30 students are at risk of falling below 3.0 units.” 

The Provost’s Office is following up with these 30 students individually. No number has been given on how many students were at risk before Saturday. 

Regarding the rushed registration on Saturday, Coile said, “Everybody did the best that they could.” 

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Sazma Sarwar and Valida Pau.

The Provost’s office emailed students a shocking update today: essentially all striking courses without a lab will only be worth 0.5 credit unless a replacement (scab) professor is offered. This ultimately means that many students are no longer at the minimum number of credits to be considered full-time students at Wellesley, let alone seniors who need credits to graduate. Any Wellesley student on financial aid who does not meet the minimum 3 credit courseload requirement will lose their aid, and international students could lose their visa.

The college’s solution, for the problem they artificially created, is allegedly to open up seats for students in tenured professors’ classes. This means that students will sign up to complete the semester in a course they did not attend for half of the semester, may have absolutely no prior knowledge in, and may not even be remotely interested in. On top of that, likely hundreds of seniors and students on financial aid will need to find open seats: these courses will likely become so crowded that it is impossible to gauge how these lectures could even continue to run, or how professors could handle this additional workload. Wellesley does not have many large classrooms available for courses over 32 students, and even 32-student courses can struggle to fit into their allocated classrooms. 

70% of tenure track faculty have also pledged not to scab union classes. I assume this solidarity extends to them refusing to open their current courses to more students. If this is the case, very few departments would be able to even offer open seats to students. The economics department is one of the few departments that has decided not to stand with the union and instead scab their courses, so perhaps we will all be taking Econ 101 together in a classroom where we can’t even get desk space. 

Let’s put this into perspective for a moment: the college has willingly decided to threaten students with losing their financial aid or visa status if they do not attend scab lectures or replace their current lectures with completely unrelated courses that are halfway through their content. This disgusting move by the college is deliberately meant to harm students. Other colleges such as the University of California, University of Illinois – Chicago, and Community College of Philadelphia have had similar strikes among faculty for very long durations. Despite this, none of these colleges took away students’ credit from their striking classes. These colleges even explicitly stated that the striking courses would not threaten students’ F1 visa status or financial aid, and some even offered refunds to students who had striking classes. 

Wellesley College is deliberately threatening their students with major financial and immigration consequences if they support their striking faculty and could even withhold graduation from students in their final semester. Considering the college’s track record, this development is unsurprising but still incredibly underhanded. Students should not be used as a bargaining chip in the administration’s dispute with the union. I ask and hope that department chairs and tenure-track faculty refuse to open up seats in their courses for students and force the college to give students their fair and deserved full credit for their striking courses, as many other institutions have done in the past.

One of the biggest arguments I see against Valentine’s is that it produces a ton of waste and excessive amounts of useless items. While I agree that if you’re gifting someone nasty chocolates in a plastic box, you’re probably generating some waste, Valentine’s is one of the few holidays where a largely biodegradable product is one of the most sought-after gifts. Flowers, to me, are a special item that doesn’t produce as much environmental waste, and they also are a reminder of our love of nature and the environment. There’s also the option to be crafty, which creates a more sentimental product than store-bought goods anyway. You can make photo books, posters, cards, hand-sew a stuffed animal, put together a video collage, paint a mug or other gift, etc. These gifts are usually not only more meaningful, but they’re less likely to be wasteful or thrown away.

Valentine’s Day is also a great day to, quite honestly, see how much your partner values you. If your situationship or new partner can’t even bother to get you a few flowers or do something special for you, I don’t think it’s a sign that they don’t value the holiday—it’s a sign that they don’t value you. Many men and women alike hide behind the argument of Valentine’s being a “capitalistic hallmark holiday” in order to avoid having to put any effort into their partner. “Sorry babe, I didn’t get you any gifts or make you anything or make any plans for Valentine’s Day, I just don’t believe in it…” is code for, “I don’t want to have to spend time or money finding or making a gift you would enjoy, and I don’t want to go on a date with you.” There are plenty of cheap or free ways to celebrate the holiday and still make your partner feel special, so an outright refusal to celebrate often says more about the person’s willingness to put effort into you and the relationship than their fight against capitalism.

Valentine’s Day isn’t just about your romantic partner, either. Anyone who feels like the holiday “shames them for being single” is either incredibly bitter or else failing to see the full scope of the holiday. One of my favorite memories, when I was little, was Valentine’s Day, when my dad would take me to the store to buy my mom a gift and flowers. I would always pick out something gold and glittery and the cheap grocery store flowers that were dyed into rainbow colors. I can remember being ecstatic to bring the gifts to my mom, and see her start laughing as she gets my crazy rainbow flowers for the 3rd year in a row. Coming from someone who has since lost her mom, I feel it’s important to value these moments where you get to show your family you love and appreciate them. It’s a holiday of love, but that doesn’t have to mean romantic love. 

So, plan a wine and paint night with your best friends or partner. Send some flowers home to your mom – I’m partial to the crazy rainbow kind. Make a photo album or collage for someone who matters to you. Make someone a card – but use your own words and handwriting, not Hallmark’s. Find ways to enjoy and celebrate a day of love that fits your goals and needs. In our workaholic, monotonous society, we aren’t given enough breaks from our work and routine. I think we all deserve a moment to celebrate the people who add value to our lives. 

One of the first and most significant changes has been in residential life. While the Tower Court remodels look incredible, they’ve also eliminated one of the most classic spaces for Wellesley parties — the Tower Court apartments. One of the only large dorm spaces on the West side, the Tower Court apartments have served generations of students as a comfortable space for casual hangouts and occasionally larger parties. The loss of these dorms is not just a blow to socialization at Wellesley — these beautiful spaces connected students to the long history of Wellesley alumni and offered a unique kind of dorm experience rarely found on campus.

The loss of the Tower Court apartments is not the only thing that has changed in residential life. Many of the most popular and community-building dorm blocks at Wellesley have been disbanded. Infamous senior single blocks such as Beebe 5th and Severance pods have been removed by Residential Life over the past two years, reducing the ability of students to create their own safe spaces on campus and host events. New similarly-sized blocks are now often placed in the middle of long hallways, or have a res life staff member forced into the block, preventing blockmates from having unique, private spaces to themselves. 

A reduction in student-led spaces is not new to Wellesley. Last year, administration shut down Cafe Hoop, and Punch’s Alley was shut down in 2023 — two of the campus’ centerpiece student-run spaces. Punch’s Alley used to provide a safe space for students to drink and celebrate, and it supplied a safe space for students to have fun or cool off, within minutes of their dorm rooms. While it was a bar, it also was a creativity hub for students — hosting bands, open mic nights, comedy shows, poetry slams and much more. These events, as one can say constitute a Wellesley experience, should be held in a space that makes students feel safe and comfortable to express themselves, and there is no other equivalent on Wellesley’s campus. 

Campus police have also been a major point of contention on our campus. Seeing police in event spaces that are meant to be fun and carefree can make many students uncomfortable. Despite requests for their presence to be replaced with EMTs at events, or for them to wear plainclothes, police officers continue to be required at many events, often wearing full uniform. I know from some students’ experiences on campus that parties have been occasionally shut down by the campus police, an action that is completely unwarranted a majority of the time. Instead of sending a CD or res life staff to request appropriate changes be made to the party, which almost all students comply with, the decision can sometimes be to send a threatening presence to shut down one of the few times students feel safe and comfortable. Tower steps has also had recent reports on sidechat of campus police coming to talk to students, something that I have never seen or heard of in my past three years at Wellesley. Steps, one of the few student spaces left on campus, is also being invaded by administrative forces. 

I love social life at Wellesley, but even I have seen increased opposition toward students and student groups trying to provide fun, safe spaces to let loose on campus. As a now senior, I’ve watched the parties at Wellesley steadily decline in frequency, driving students to extreme pregames that can cause medical transports and packing buses into Boston for frat parties.

The issue is not solely something as trivial as “Wellesley students need to party.” Wellesley students will always party, whether the administration likes it or not. That is the thesis  behind substance harm reduction, championed by the Office of Student Wellness. The point is that Wellesley students deserve safe spaces on campus to party. When the college puts up barriers preventing students from having fun on campus, students will continue to go off campus to clubs and frat parties. However, Boston is having an ongoing drink spiking crisis, and MIT frat parties can be frequented by random, non-students, according to what MIT frat members have told me in the past. Wellesley students are migrating off campus to male-controlled spaces to party, where they are at significantly more risk of danger and violence. Getting home safe can be incredibly difficult when students aren’t sober and aren’t in spaces run by fellow sibs.

The administration needs to get rid of their aversion to a Wellesley social scene. Despite various attempts by staff in student life to restore Punch’s Alley and other aspects of Wellesley social life, administrative staff have allegedly shut these efforts down. The college loves to continuously boast about its unique “Wellesley experience” and a strong sense of community to prospective students. In the same breath, they are actively dismantling long-standing traditions and community building spaces that have helped the campus maintain this “Wellesley experience.” Wellesley students deserve safe spaces to be themselves and enjoy college life, and the college needs to take measures to reduce police presence and reinstate vital student spaces on campus.

Contact the editor(s) responsible for this story: Teesta Kasargod

There is an inherent attitude among those in prestigious institutions like Wellesley that there are two options if you’re going into the medical field: doctor or researcher. Anything less is looked down upon, and anyone who can’t “handle the pressure” of the pre-med track just isn’t trying hard enough. These attitudes aren’t only founded on privilege and perpetuated by dynasty-esque doctor families, but also are inaccurate and limit students’ potential. 

I know several students at Wellesley who don’t even stop to consider other medical careers due to the bias against those careers and the lack of information regarding other pre-health graduate programs on campus. While every Wellesley student is certainly capable of pursuing a career as a physician or PhD researcher, it has to be said that the graduate school experience, work-life balance of the careers, and student loan debt required do not suit everyone. Students who weigh out these factors and look into other careers in the medical field should not be shunned or feel bad about themselves. 

Many students also feel that the only way they can become wealthy in the medical field is to follow the medical school route, despite the fact that they’re often starting their residencies making only around $60k with $250k-500k in graduate student loan debt. In comparison, in-state public Physician assistant programs can cost less than $45k, with the starting salary being typically close to or over $100k. Additionally, students going into other medical professions can start their careers much earlier. With two gap years and surgical residencies, many medical students do not begin their medical career until 29-32 years old. Most other graduate medical programs are able to start their careers at much younger ages, allowing for financial independence much earlier in life, and earlier payback of student loan debt. 

Another often ignored aspect of medical school is its ability to shut out students who are minorities or from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Despite medical schools having increasingly competitive MCAT scores and GPA requirements, studies have found that MCAT scores and GPAs have no correlation with MD achievements as a clinician. These test scores and GPA requirements are often keeping out low-income and disadvantaged students, who are more likely to be juggling more responsibilities outside of school work during their undergraduate education, and less likely to afford MCAT prep courses and other tutoring services. In comparison, while still very competitive, most PA programs no longer require forms of standardized testing and have much lower required applicant GPAs. The system of medical school has been designed to shut out disadvantaged students – and fighting a system set up in that way can be exhausting. It shouldn’t be the expectation that every minority student has to take it upon themselves to dismantle or fight the systemic oppression of medical school and become a doctor. 

Careers in other areas of the medical field are just as rewarding as those of physicians, if not more so depending on your goals as a medical worker. Nurses, for example, have much more patient contact than doctors and often can make a greater impact on daily patient health and safety than doctors. Additionally, travel nurses now make over $100k on average, along with their travel and meals being covered in their contracts by most travel agencies. This essentially means that nurses can travel somewhere new in the US for a three to twelve-month period for free on top of being paid six figures. A nurse I know has lived in Hawaii for almost two years through travel contracts, and she has loved the ability to help patients, travel and make a ton of money.

My point is not that you should give up on your dream of being a doctor. Everyone has different things that draw them to a career, and anyone who feels medicine suits them should pursue it. However, I’m asking that – Wellesley students especially – have more of an open mind to the medical field. Not everyone has to be a doctor – and that’s okay. 

The primary suspicion surrounding Sidechat is due to concerns of privacy. On Yik Yak, students could realistically post whatever they wanted, regardless of the content, with little concern about consequences. For some, this was an outlet to rant or post something funny. For others, it was a way to cyberbully and post explicit and illegal material. Regardless of what students posted, there was never the risk of being identified by college administrators, dealing with social consequences from friends or breaking Wellesley’s Honor Code because there was no way for them to be traced through the app. Yik Yak’s policy was to “store a User ID, which is a randomized string of digits, based on their device’s ID, and used to identify their posts. It does not store, or share, your email address or phone number.”

Sidechat’s sign-up policy brought this anonymity and perceived security to an end. Although Sidechat claims only to use student emails to insure that the user is indeed a student, many expressed concern about the possibility of administration being able to use their email to find their posts. Sidechat additionally refuses to respond to most media’s requests for comment, and appears to avoid answering many questions about the app’s goals, background and direction. Many sibs on campus who previously used Yik Yak have opted not to use Sidechat as a result of these security concerns.

The reason these anonymous posting apps gain so much traction here is likely because some Wellesley students feel like they aren’t part of a space where they can truly say what they want, regardless of whether or not it is virtual. If this is the case, this theory reveals the presence of a social hole at Wellesley. According to MIT Professor Sherry Turkle in her book, “Alone Together,” the presence of devices provides us with “space for the emergence of a new state of the self, split between the screen and the physical real.” For Wellesley students, the “physical real” counterpart to Sidechat doesn’t exist when analyzing the content that is produced. Sidechat’s anonymity allows students to say things they feel would otherwise cause them backlash or an Honor Code violation. As a result of the vague wording of the Honor Code, students are unsure what things they can freely say without incurring a violation. 

Perhaps more significant than the threat of college administration and the Honor Code is the fact that students on campus often harshly judge each other’s opinions. The blatant honesty that Sidechat allows can’t happen around campus when the threat of social ostracism looms over us and our ability to speak freely. Wellesley students, as many of you may know, have very strong opinions. When someone disagrees or has differing points of view, there is always the chance that this person will be subject to doxxing, exclusion or mistreatment. Many times, hot gossip around campus without anonymity places a sibling or group of sibs as the subject of social ridicule, either online or by word of mouth. Wellesley students that subscribe to anonymity-seeking apps seem to be their most authentic selves when there is no threat to them or their social position, making Sidechat one of the only options for genuine conversation. For Wellesley’s students on Sidechat, it seems that the right to anonymity matters more than the content being produced because of it.

In a way, the social hole that Wellesley’s campus contains could be solved by bolstering student-run co-ops and other student-run activities, just as the strengthening of these clubs has made up for the social hole that resulted from COVID-19. As much as Sidechat provides some sort of relief, the issue of privacy negotiations, user agreements and cyberbullying complicates the issue. Anonymous messaging isn’t the answer to the lack of communication that exists within our community. Our campus needs to work to build a healthier community that benefits from the contributions of all members, and doesn’t shame those who bring their opinions to light.

Beyond his controversial online presence, he has also been charged with crimes of sex trafficking in Romania and was allegedly running a criminal empire that involved the exploitation of women against their will. His harmful ideas surrounding gender equality may have harmed women beyond his online messaging. Is his, and many other men’s, sudden rise to fame through their sharing of misogynistic messages simply a result of social media algorithms, or is there more at hand?

While the current allegations against Andrew Tate make it clear how harmful and dangerous he is, they fail to explain why he continues to cultivate an incredibly dedicated male audience. Not only does Tate command an internet army of young men — with his Twitter currently sitting at around five million followers — but he has continued to spread into the fanbases of other prominent internet figures, such as one of the largest Twitch streamers Adin Ross and popular fitness YouTuber Bradley Martyn. Many of these influencers claim Tate’s self-help videos and messages have been beneficial to their lives and can help young men feel more confident and successful. 

However, these influencers often cherry-pick which aspects of Tate’s online presence to respond to and ignore the evidence of him directly harming others and the glaringly obvious moments where he preaches sexist rhetoric. Or, even worse, they wholly support the messages and efforts of these misogynistic and sexist men. Lack of media literacy combined with poor education on feminism and gender equality has led these men to promote dangerous individuals to their impressionable fans. 

Looking at the men who find themselves so enamored with Andrew Tate, many are blatantly bigoted and looking for a community where their perspectives are accepted. However, there is another class of young men who are simply seeking guidance and believe that Tate has the answers. Oftentimes, these men exist in echo chambers that claim allegations against Tate and many people’s hatred of him comes solely from fake news and propaganda. They lack the media literacy necessary to discern the truth and are undereducated on gender equality. Beyond just their lacking education, some of these men may have grown up in a social climate that shames men who are honest about their feelings and without positive male role models. These circumstances have made it difficult for them to understand women and dating, and even themselves, and it becomes easier for them to seek out outlets like Tate who claim to hold all of the answers. It is also easy for anger and frustration over personal difficulties dating women to translate into the hatred of women that Andrew Tate propagates. Without the support of those around them and education on the dangers of these ideas, they easily begin to fall into a women-hating and women-blaming mindset that is difficult to escape. 

Even if Tate falls into obscurity, a new, equally misogynistic figure is likely to take his position. Platforms like TikTok are made to promote short-form content, giving anyone the opportunity to “blow up” and become famous quickly. This content often lacks context and easily allows users to go down rabbit holes of harmful misinformation. This is not specific to TikTok — almost all social media platforms are designed to mass-share any and all information because that is what keeps a large number of people using the platforms. 

Many people who at one point supported Tate only knew him from short-form videos that showed him spewing surface-level self-help quotes, giving them a completely different perception of him than if they had read the articles surrounding his allegations of sex trafficking or the video clips of him proudly claiming to have committed numerous crimes. While Tate’s initial rise to fame was built on harmless attempts at encouraging men, social media algorithms have continued to promote his content despite its transition to being blatantly sexist and harmful. Not only has Andrew Tate said aggressive, offensive things about women, but he has also demeaned men who did conform to his idea of a “masculine” male. Of course, social media is about data and statistics, not morals, and as Tate’s content began to gain popularity, algorithms contributed to his rise by promoting his content and similar posts.

Another consequence of the contradictory mass information made available through social media is the phenomenon of cisgender men feeling increasingly lost in a day and age where they incorrectly believe their masculinity is constantly jeopardized. Men like Andrew Tate perpetuate this fear and weaponize it to profit from and grow their audience. Young men are especially prone to falling prey to dangerous figures due to growing up in a patriarchal society. Additionally, men who are neglected as children, either physically or emotionally, tend to equalize isolation with masculinity and struggle to verbalize the pain and struggles they experience because communication is seen as a “feminine” trait. For men who feel this way,  social media becomes both an accessible outlet to decompress and a source of encouragement.

Protecting the world from harmful rhetoric created by Tate and other creators is not an easy task, but it is a necessary one. Two vitally important steps that we believe can help require changes in education. High school students are given little-to-no education on media literacy and women’s and gender studies. Without education on these topics, high schoolers are more likely to be misguided by misinformation, fail to research figures before supporting them and fail to understand gender inequality in society. Implementing courses that include these topics in secondary institutions could help students better understand how to avoid dangerous figures like Andrew Tate and understand how his views are inherently harmful to many communities. The implementation of media literacy and women’s and gender studies in secondary institutions would allow for the proliferation of the belief that those topics are just as important as purely technical disciplines, such as STEM subjects, encouraging more people to further their education beyond secondary schools. It would also help students begin to fully understand the complexities of gender and patriarchy and how it impacts their actions and everyday lives.

There is no simple way to reeducate a population who has been convinced that discord between what they believe to be true and what they see in mainstream media is equivalent to that media being inaccurate. People have been trained to consume content rapidly without context. We know that taking action to prevent this dangerous mindset from spreading is the only way to prevent figures similar to Andrew Tate from infecting the minds of young people. While many feel exhausted from hearing about Andrew Tate, news coverage of him is essential to help stop the cycle from repeating itself in the future. As advocates and future leaders, we hope that everyone begins to help push our society forward to a more inclusive future, and is willing to sit down with those you know who have been misguided by Tate or others like him to try to get them to make a breakthrough. This situation is challenging, infuriating and downright disgusting; but it is always important to remember how a lack of education can cause people to become deeply misguided and misinformed. Tackling deep-rooted issues in our education system is an essential part of solving this problem, and making attempts to educate those around us can only help the cause and gain allies in the fight against bigotry online. 

Despite El Table and Café Hoop having a late soft opening last year, many of the best features were unavailable, and Punch’s Alley was unable to open at all. I know my own disappointment was immeasurable, especially as all of the upperclassmen surrounding me would always talk about how excited they were for the co-op’s reopening. While COVID-19 has impacted the ability of co-ops to return to normal operation, I believe the choices made by the administration in the last academic year made it close to impossible for many of the co-ops to fully reopen. 

The administration began refusing to front the co-op’s funding as they had historically done, leaving them with almost no budget to be able to pay their employees or begin operations. On top of the college no longer providing startup funding, they also limited the co-op’s ability to do fundraising, as a GoFundMe started by El Table this August was forced to shut down due to “the College’s fundraising policies.” 

Communication with the administration was apparently very confusing as well. Originally, managers were told they would be able to reopen after their health inspections, but after passing them, they were then told they could not open. It is clear to me that throughout last academic year, the administration changed the way they interacted with the co-ops, and has made it unfairly difficult for them to open. While the College did not provide adequate support for the co-ops to reopen, they have been happy to continue using them to entice prospective students on the Wellesley College website.

While it remains to be seen whether or not these administrative barriers will continue for the co-ops this year, the co-op’s absence has caused an immeasurable impact on student life at the College. These student-run and led organizations allowed us to have spaces to go on campus at late hours and for activities that aren’t possible anywhere else on campus. A personal favorite of mine is El Table, as they provide one of the only spots for us to get food in the academic quad. It also offers distinctive menu items that you can’t get anywhere else on campus, and provides a laid-back atmosphere to do work or chat with friends. While it holds similarities to other campus spots like Collins Cafe, it cultivates a unique environment by being student run.

Currently, the latest dining option available on campus is Lulu late night, which only runs until 10 p.m., despite the fact that most of us tend to stay up much later than that. On a near-constant basis, I am left with nowhere on campus to eat dinner or get a snack when I’m up late studying or staying up on the weekends. I believe that Café Hoop being open late at night helps combat this discrepancy without putting a burden on the Wellesley Fresh workers or the Union. 

Not only is Café Hoop a great place to get late-night snacks, but it also provides us all a safe and relaxed place to socialize at late hours. It encourages students who are heading to or getting back from parties to eat, an important harm-reduction strategy that is stressed by the Office of Student Wellness. Going out to drink without having adequate food in your stomach, as most students are forced to do, can be potentially dangerous. 

On top of the College not having any truly late-night food options, they offer no spaces on campus for safe partying or monitored drinking. Punch’s Alley has been a key part of campus social life in the past, providing a safe and monitored space for sibs to drink while also offering fun events such as pub nights, slam poetry and live music. It’s not something I have personally been able to experience, but I can still feel the gaping hole it has left in our campus community. By leaving Punch’s Alley closed, we have seen that more sibs are encouraged to go off campus for partying or late-night fun, into spaces that are potentially unsafe and poorly monitored. The administration needs to re-examine the importance of Punch’s Alley as a safe space. 

Artistically, Punch’s Alley also served as a space for the Wellesley community to connect with small artists and have chances to express their own art in a safe space. I have been looking forward to a slam poetry night since I first got accepted to the College, but seeing the administration’s lack of enthusiasm to get our co-ops running has been frustrating. The spaces offered by the co-ops are important to the safety and well-being of students, both socially and physically, and their loss has caused all of us to miss out on opportunities to build a more expansive social life on campus.

As it stands, only the current seniors at Wellesley College have been able to experience the campus with the co-ops functioning normally. With the co-ops unopened, most students are losing out on distinctive community-building opportunities as well as basic staples of college life. As the academic year progresses, we are all hopeful that the co-ops will return and bring back some of the magic of campus life, and ask that the administration offers more support to these vital student-run spaces.