The independent student newspaper at Goucher College

Category archive

Opinion

Senator Salaries Slashed: A Response

by
Image Source: Goucher College Facebook

I write the following opinion piece as a concerned student, not as a senator, as I cannot represent SGA on this matter.

Facing the dire prospect of exhausting the Student Government Association (SGA) funds before 2026, the SGA enacted its first wage cuts for the 2024/25 academic year. Even with these wage cuts, the SGA projections (assuming all else stays constant) show SGA depleting its funds within 3 years. This situation is unacceptable. The Student body needs to be aware of the financial situation facing the SGA and its potential impact on the student body.

SGA spends significantly more money every semester than it gets from the student activity fee. SGA had a huge surplus of funds due to COVID, when SGA still received revenue from the student activity fee but could not utilize any of it.

The SGA is committed to addressing this issue, and has passed a resolution to establish a balanced budget by the end of the academic year. While I am confident the SGA can achieve this, the path and exact methods to do so still need to be worked out.

The first people to be impacted were SGA members. Senator Jimy said in person, and in his Quindecim opinion piece that he felt that SGA pay should be eliminated entirely. While I disagree with this approach, I thought it was important that the SGA consider it as an option. Treasurer Schaefer-Canner modeled this option in his projections. His analysis indicated that eliminating SGA pay would result in net income for SGA.

Goucher and its student body benefit from compensating SGA members for their time and effort, as it enables more inclusive participation, particularly from those who might otherwise be unable to contribute their time for financial reasons. For many, these financial incentives allows them to commit the necessary time to serve within SGA, and ensure their diverse voices are heard. It is probable that the wage cuts will reduce the diversity of SGA. This in an equity issue to make sure more people’s voices are heard.

With 31 current senators, 3 of those also being committee co-chairs, and capacity for up to 32 senators, a significant chunk of the SGA budget was used on senators despite the minimal hours and pay. I have been informed that this group is the most engaged, diverse, thoughtful senates of late. I believe this is in part due to the pay, and partially due to the current SGA executive board’s efforts to have diverse voices in SGA and Goucher at large. 

In addition to Senators, there was a cut to the entire executive branch’s pay and/or hours. This area is likely where significant future cuts will be made. 

I agree with the argument that if SGA transitions into an all-volunteer organization, less work will be done, and what little will be done will be done slower. Very few, if any, students have the time and energy to commit 10-20 hours a week for a volunteer position, given academics, club, additional jobs, and other obligations. The talent pool for SGA executive board could shrink significantly. Personally, even as someone passionate about being a voice for students, wanting to assist clubs, organize events/programs, and everything else, it would be hard committing to 20 hours of unpaid labor per week. There are too many other opportunities offering pay or credit, while still providing the fulfilment of making positive impacts on Goucher and beyond.

That being said, I am a realist. SGA has limited funds and should not operate unsustainably. Future cuts in other areas may have a worse impact on the SGA and the Goucher community.

The Textbook Assistance Program, Aunt Flow, and the transportation assistance program are all programs currently provided by the SGA for the student body. These key programs make up a smaller, but still significant portion of the SGA budget. I am against cuts to these programs, but the SGA faces a serious challenge.

SGA has a bunch of smaller miscellaneous costs that I think can be reduced or removed. The biggest of these is the cost of the SGA website. The SGA is estimated to pay $1,800 a year for web services. This should be cut to zero and just put under the larger (free) Goucher website. 

SGA is also exploring ways to increase its revenue streams. SGA currently receives $100 per semester from each (non-GPEP) Goucher undergraduate student as part of the $250 student activity fee. The amount obtained from this varies with the student population. The executive branch is looking into raising money from alumni. While I hope that this initiative is successful, we should look for more avenues of revenue generation, to ensure we have the funds to maintain and grow SGA programs, clubs, and student advocacy efforts.

The budgets for most Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) including all student clubs, currently come from SGA and amount to approximately $40,000 a year. I believe supporting clubs is one of the most important tasks of SGA, but with a large percentage of SGA’s money going to clubs, I fear potential cuts. Next year there will be serious discussions about restructuring club budgeting and the way in which SGA distributes money to clubs. This is an opportunity to create a better system for clubs to meet their needs or potentially end up in a precarious system.

I agree with Jimy Kuhn that giving more money to the Quindecim (possibly to be used to pay student reporters) would be a great idea, but it is not possible within our current structure, which limits clubs to a budget of no more than $2,600 a year. Such a change could improve Goucher journalism. The Q is one of several clubs where more money would have a huge impact. 

Perhaps some version of the club council may return. SGA should keep the current spread-out system of club budgeting and never return to one-day decision making. However, bringing in more club leadership voices and other student voices remain necessary in our evolving SGA financing system. 

I believe that we need to consider a reorganization of SGA and that the SGA executive branch could and should do more to distribute SGA’s workload. Our current senators are underutilized; and having processes so more SGA members are prepared to step up into executive positions is important. Having spoken with Treasurer Schaefer-Canner, I understand his role is important, yet hard to delegate. He has begun creating a document listing his roles, responsibilities, and advice to help his successor. I hope other SGA leaders follow his example, ensuring a smooth transition to future administrations.

Transparency is important in these deliberations. In terms of transparency our current SGA tries its best, almost everything is posted on our website. This is still a work in progress. All of SGA’s general assemblies are open to all Goucher students. SGA’s Communications Director runs the SGA’s Instagram page. Other student outreach programs are in development. Most of the SGA’s executive branch have office hours students should utilize; this is a resource on campus that serves the student body. 

The general assembly has discussed how SGA held over $120,000 in covid surplus, and decided to spend it to kickstart SGA and student engagement post Covid. However, this led to a financially unstable system being created. The SGA pay system was mostly established under the controversial leadership of President Ty’lor Schnella. In a prior Quindecim article interview, he said that “GSG (a previous version of SGA) is interesting in that every 2-3 years it implodes… …This is detrimental to the success and continuity of the organization, and consequently, the student voice on campus.” I am worried SGA will follow this pattern, so I would like to work towards a smooth transition to a better system within the framework of SGA that does not “implode” every few years.

It is important to have a thoughtful, responsible SGA President and Vice President especially in light of the power they hold. The voters in our 2025 SGA election should think of the responsibility these offices hold and pick representatives we can trust to serve the whole student body.

By Max Ravnitzky, ’28

2024 Election: How is Goucher Feeling, and What Can We Do?

by
Image Source: Business Standard


November 5th, 2024 is considered one of the most important election days in United States history. The Presidential Election is a day where Americans have the right to have their voices heard and determine who will be the represented face of America. Citizens of America will have a choice on who will be the President of the United States: Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. A decision that will impact the future of America and the fate of its citizens can be very stressful! Goucher students agree that the lives of LGBT people, women, immigrants, and the working class are on the line in this election, which brings in anxiety towards how the American population will vote for who will seal their fates. 

It has been confirmed that Donald Trump has won the election, meaning that he is the 47th president of the United States. This has been devastating news for countless people. Ever since the announcement, there has been a feeling of despair for many Goucher students. Because of what Trump is known to stand for, ideas that are rooted in bigotry, misogyny and hatred, many people have a sense of doom, especially since human rights are very much at risk.  Trump’s connection with Project 2025 is one of the key reasons why his presidency is scary for many. 

Aniya (Class of 2025) has expressed that they felt disappointed over the choices that they’re forced to settle for. “I’m not happy about my choices,” Aniya exclaimed. “I think that there’s no victory in this election, other than survival. That’s not something that we should be okay with.” Just like Aniya, many U.S. and Goucher residents have iffy opinions over the election. It’s upsetting and unfair that Americans have to rely on an unfair election system.  

Now, more than ever, people need to be reminded that there is kindness in this world. It’s encouraged to find a sense of community where people express love for one another because acts of kindness and justice can combat bigotry. Ignorance, false information, and hatred spread rapidly as soon as Trump was elected, which makes it more important to show people who are most affected that they are valued and loved. It should be obvious that the people who are going to run the government will not show kindness to the citizens that they’re supposed to stand for, so we as citizens should be kind to each other in order to remind us that they’re is still hope for humanity. Acts of kindness, such as helping someone out, giving them compliments, or even saying hello will come a long way. If we can’t be nice and help one another in dark times, then our days will forever be dark. 

There needs to be a reminder that there are safe spaces where you can reach out and discuss how the election makes one feel to get closer. Carter (2025) agrees that finding community will remind us that no one should feel alone throughout what’s to come. Carter says, “It’s important to focus on community and connecting yourself, rather than letting fear isolate you. That’s exactly what people who want to put you in a box want. Being able to go to a safe space will make you feel comfortable asking questions, being stressed, or just receiving support.” Empathy can go a long way by reminding us that America has communities where you can form conversations about your feelings and feel validation towards your worries. “Doomscrolling” can also make people develop feelings of dread for the future, so avoiding this is ideal. Having these conversations will make you realize that you’re not alone. 

As for me: The fact that criminals are not allowed to vote, but can run for president is baffling! What does this say to our women and queer residents that our government loathes us for wanting to have comfortable lives? It’s upsetting that we are living in a country where people would rather have a felon to be the face of the country than a woman. It’s very difficult to have a sense of hope when there are many people who want to make you feel unsafe in “the land of the free”. We must not let corrupt politicians dictate on how we should express ourselves! While topics of abortion, trans and gay rights, and climate change are becoming controversial, we should not back down from having senses of logic and empathy for our community and the environment.

The best thing that we could do is help each other out and survive. As laws will be changing in different states, please make sure to check your resident state laws to ensure that you will live in a safe community. It’s upsetting to face the reality that this country would rather keep an old, ignorant, rich white man as president, rather than making history by having a woman of color as president. 

By Kristen Wheeler ’25

Vitality of Hope 

by
Photo Credit: Aniya Carrington

By Aniya Carrington 

4:53 AM

My internal alarm glitched in the early morning on November sixth. 

I opened my eyes to my dim ceiling, and the easy nothingness that comes from four in the morning. The second that my brain fully woke to feel my body laying in the sheets, I knew. I didn’t need to check. It was there: the soft lapping of dread at the shores of my body; the sorrowful intuition that you get from being Black in America. 

Kamala Harris was not the president of the United States. 

There were a million signs telling me that it would end up this way, but everything in me needed to believe otherwise. I was running on the charge that hope gave me, and with it gone, I was depleted. 

In the moment, I turned over, not ready to face it. I wanted to be soothed by some otherworldly presence: my dreams, the pillow against my cheek, my late grandfather’s naive excitement from years ago at showing his granddaughter a vice president that looked similar enough to her in a position of power. When I voiced my concern about some of her beliefs, he looked at me, puzzled. In this rare moment of peaceful cross-generational communication about politics, I had forgotten one very important thing: due to everything thrown at us, mostly it’s expected that Black people will stand by other Black people, no matter what. 

The attempt was made coming into this election, and unfortunately, it fell through. 

The temptation inside of me to run from this new reality was strong. Humans relish in the path of least resistance. Squeezing our eyes shut and denying, or prolonging the denial, is how we believe we survive. 

7:44 AM

I finally begin to process what my bones knew to be true. This election has been lost. 

I open my phone and see people with faces like mine crying, mourning, frightened. In the dark of their eyes, mirrored are my thoughts. What about my students, my best-friends, my unborn child? What about the environment, our education, our rights? How can they all just be lost as quickly as that? 

I see unidentifiable profiles jeering; pointing and laughing, inhumane down to the marrow. Your body, my choice, is a celebration, intent in the way it fills my cells with horror. There is blame being thrown around, clashing with the exit polls; over fifty percent of white women voted red, fifty percent of latino men voted red, all those third party votes lost. Everyone is talking about someone else. Everyone is throwing up a spotlight, creating a room full of flashing strobes that leave the people inside blinded.  

In my room, tears are shed. The thickness of fear is hard to resist. It’s like an illness; a slow poison. I stop and start between sobs to get dressed and attend class. The professor promises a politics-free zone – whatever that means – an easy day – if such a thing exists – and yet, halfway through, I desperately need to leave, overwhelmed by the constriction that sitting still and breathing and doing nothing is. 

There must be something to do, I think, placing one foot in front of the other, as I hurry away from the room of playing pretend. There has to be something else. 

There isn’t. Grief resists all logical progression of time. You can ache for things that have not happened, for undead things, for the tangible and abstract alike. My thoughts are to my future, the future of the people I hold dear, my sisters, my mother, myself. I’m grieving the people I haven’t met, that I won’t meet, that I feel like I know because I understand they’re feeling this too. In a sickening twist, we have become kin under this distress.  

12:21 PM

 I join, then leave a seven minute call where my academic advisor tells me there is nothing she can do to help me. 

I need things that she cannot give me – reassurance, peace, to travel back in time, for her to fix this – and she knows it. But her power bank is low too. I’m going to keep my camera off if that’s okay, she says. Still recovering from a rough batch of COVID. I don’t bother wondering how true it is. I’ll keep my camera off too, I respond, as if I’m graciously doing her a favor, pretending that it isn’t just for me.

Either way, it’s a mutual allowance of momentary vulnerability. I am still hiding, and it brings flimsy comfort to know that others are too. She can’t help me in the big ways, or the small ones. It’s impossible to see my transcript due to technical issues, and so the meeting is rendered useless quite quickly. 

Sorry, she sighs, but there’s nothing I can do right now. 

Her verbal admission of helplessness feels more honest than required. It takes energy to read into it, but as we left the call, I feel like our voices’ low tones hug one another goodbye. 

There’s not much to do now. 

Emails come: counseling is being offered, there are people who want to let you talk, there are people who want to talk to you. You are not alone loses its meaning with how often it’s said. A writing professor says that class is optional; Come if you need somewhere to be. If you can’t, there will be no penalties for you taking this time. It’s completely understandable.

 The space is just as helpful as it is harmful. It makes me very aware of my racketing heart. Too emotional to be looked at square in the face. Too numb to round a corner steadily. Usually, writing balances me. Shows me the healthy medium to the stretching spectrum of my thoughts. It tells me where I should focus my energy. I approach it with the dedication that a teaphile brings to a sachet of herbs and collection of porcelain; I believe it to be healing down to my very core. 

This is the first time in my life that I feel nothing when I think about the act of writing. It’s scarier than the grief. To sit with it is to hold hands with a nightmare. 

6:32 PM 

I am angry. 

Raging and inconsolable. Things are being taken away from me and all I can do is sit and watch them be ripped out of my hands? This is all that I am reduced to? Weeping listlessness? A drone of despair? No. Something hot floods me then, thick and slow-moving.  I eat with a vicious sort of hunger; the kind that is more about the violence of biting than any savoring of taste. I blindly work through an assignment, feeling hate at how useless it feels. All this talk about nothing, I seethe, All of this nothing. 

I storm to work, where I tutor students in need, with a thunderstorm nipping my heels. I’m projecting hate into the space around me. If someone wants something from me, they’ll need to be brave and quick about it. There is a lot that I’m missing in the moment, but writing is one of the things that makes me into a kinder, wide-eyed individual. The lack of it, plus the new festering hole in my heart where it usually resides, is blackening with rot, turning me into something new and terrible. 

I believe there is no solution to this growing snowball – I will tumble down this hill until I am crushed into nothing, flattened by my own nervous system – and then a student shows up. 

She’s exhausted, clearly. Another mirror, I look at the exhausted blink of her eyes, the slow way she pulls out a notebook. The ache of today is a coat on her. She’s younger than me, and maybe it’s because I have sisters, because I’m thinking about their future well-being in between every breath I take today, but something about her breaks the fever of my anger. 

There’s a test tomorrow, she explains, in such a way that I can hear her silent: if there even is a tomorrow, and I realize suddenly, starkly, that I want there to be a tomorrow. I want to soothe her. I want to fix something, even if it’s small. 

I smile, and I pull out drill sheets. Let’s see what we can do. 

As we work, we talk. We’re not dancing around the hanging thing over our heads, but turning our sides to it, letting it float in our peripheral. We acknowledge the reasons for our despair, yet continue to focus on the task ahead, and slowly, definition by definition, word by word, a rope is threaded. Our Black hands are holding onto one another’s, passing along this knowledge, stubbornly creating hope for success. Short-term, only until tomorrow, but still, success nonetheless. A future, despite. 

Does this make sense? I ask, regarding the material, but also the world around us, and she laughs in a free way. No, she admits, eyes crinkling. Okay, non-judgmental, then we’ll work through it together. 

We walk away from the table lighter, full of something necessary. Like we ate a meal, or hugged. As if there was a simple human wish there that we were able to fulfill for each other. 

I’m terrified, she says in the warm night air. We’re lingering, understanding that to leave this moment is to return to the turbulence of everything. I nod. Me too. This is hard. Turning to the thing in the periphery. Giving it notice, but no power. I’ll come to the next session, she says. Will you be here? 

And I say, yes, realizing the answer’s truth for the first time, something tight unfurling in my chest. 

10:02 PM

 I open a word document, and it doesn’t feel like pain lancing through me. I’ve been reading recently, and it lends itself to my vocabulary, my ordering of words. I find art in this creation. I find joy. 

The first couple of things aren’t good. It’s just emotion coming through my fingers, I don’t have words for what I am saying yet. I want something that will comfort the girl that came to my tutoring session, the academic advisor unable to show her face, my sisters. I want something to comfort me. Something that will hold me when I crumble. Something that gives me direction. 

Recently, I watched a webinar with Dr. Thema Bryant, a clinical psychologist that specializes in trauma research. It was called Cultivating Joy as a Sacred Practice of Resistance. She says that joy is a reserve that you can pull from in times of heaviness. Selecting forces of joy, of strength, of resilience, surrounding yourself with them, and letting them fuel you are all ways of pushing back against the world’s insistence that you are better off miserable. 

They want you dead, so surviving, and even better than that, doing so joyously, is how you fight.

Currently, my joy is creating. Whether that’s writing or making pencil drawings on notebook paper. It doesn’t matter. It feeds me, and in a world that’s intending to starve me, it’s deeply necessary. Find your joy, and center your life around it. Make it your medicine. 

In any case, I believe that we need to create. We need to create with intention; for someone, for joy, for peace. We need to create intently; sit down and do it, make space to do it, carve out time for it. We need to make  creating a routine; practice ritualistically building something with your mind and familiarize yourself with the restorative gift it brings. 

If creation involving thought isn’t for you, then create a space. Give yourself a room to go to, fill it with things that bring you peace, settle there and recharge before you come back out. Involve people: look at who is in your life, who you wish was there more often, who gives you something that can’t be received from anything else, and cherish them. Invite them in further. Let yourself have community. Be enriched by them. And while you’re doing so, honor the places that accept you. Breathe life into the spaces that revive us. Our libraries, our classrooms, our affinity spaces. These need to be churches to us. They should be places where people go in order to inhale safety. Places where people can let their hard-locked muscles loosen; let their bones unlatch to rest, fill themselves back up with hope. 

That interaction at that singular tutoring session – the sustained belief in one small good – gave me what I needed the entire day. It was vital, just as hope always is. It has always existed, even in the worst of times, and it will always exist if we make space for it.

Opinion: Student Senator Salaries Slashed

by
Photo Credit: Jimy Kuhn

On November 13th, the Student Government voted to stop paying its senators and lower the paid hours and wages of those on the executive board. This was due to, after looking at SGA spendings, the realization that by Fall 2025, the SGA would be out of money. This vote stopped that from happening, but it does not solve the problem. The SGA, if it continues paying its executive board members even at this reduced rate, will still run out of money by Fall 2026.

An obvious long term solution is to stop paying the entire student government and make all positions in the SGA volunteer positions, which is the model that most other student governments work with. Our SGA only became a paid position back in 2022, when excess funding from the unspent Student Activity Fees over the pandemic gave the SGA a large excess of money. This suggestion brought up at the General Assembly meeting was met  with some pushback. Members of the Executive Board, who are still being paid, brought up that money is a large motivating factor in their work, that if they were not being paid they would not have the motivation, nor be able to give the time commitment, to do the many many things that they do. 

I ask however, what about the countless members of club leadership who put equal hours into their organizations with no hope of compensation? Q reporters put countless hours into reporting, editing, and publishing a student newspaper every two weeks without any expectation of monetary compensation. Q Reporters often have to deal professionally with members of our administration and our editors help to uplift student voices on this campus. These reporters and editors, and many other club leaders all across campus, clearly set an example that you do not need to be paid to do high quality work. Why is the Student Government any different?

I am concerned, then, that the decision to start paying the Student Government has changed the attitude of the Student Government. I worry that the Student Government perhaps thinks too highly of their work compared to the equal amounts of unpaid work clubs put in. I also worry that the decision to start paying members of the student government has led to students joining not because they necessarily wish to improve and support the campus, but just to get paid. The other more likely reason would be that it looks good on their resume, but wouldn’t it look so much better on your resume if it were an unpaid position?

It is true that the executive board in Student Government puts in countless hours of hard work, however this does not need to be the case. Currently, there are 40 senators at the SGA’s disposal. If Executive Board members were more trusting and willing to work with their senators, and delegate more tasks to senators, this would alleviate the executive workload and give senators more things to do, as currently their only responsibilities are their one hour attendance at GA meetings and committee meetings, adding up to a whopping two hours of work each week. Senators want to do more things for their campus, but it seems there are not enough tasks for them to do. But how can it be the case that there is not enough work for Senators, but an excess of work for the Executive Board? Students are capable of doing some of the work of the Executive Board, their tasks are not so highly specialized to be impossible for other students to do, this is proven by the fact that students run the Student Government. The amount of hours the Exec Board works can be lessened if they learn to use their senators and delegate their workload. 

By Jimy Kuhn, ’27

Opinion: Why I Voted for Kamala Harris—A Candidate With Us In Mind

by

Photo Credit: Felix Knight

Voting in this election is not just a civic duty reserved for ultra-plugged in political participants like me. Voting isn’t just about demonstrating that you follow and care about the political world. Voting—especially in this election—is about demonstrating that you care for your community. If you care about women, transgender individuals, Black people, immigrants, high prices, climate change, gun control, health care, affording a home or an education—if you care about anyone at all who lives in this great nation, you cannot sit this election out. This Presidential election is a choice between someone who cares about you, fundamentally, and someone who doesn’t.

I voted for Kamala Harris, because she has always cared about the people. She became a prosecutor because she couldn’t stomach the thought of her friend’s stepfather getting away with child sexual abuse. She ran for California attorney general and took on domestic violence and gun violence, while enacting programs to ensure that nonviolent offenders could reintegrate in society. She fought against the banks for their predatory loan policies, and won—giving that money back to the community. Her career in the Senate focused on lifting up the working class and bringing down costs. Her entire career has been about fighting for people who need someone in their corner, and right now, all of America needs a President like Harris in their corner.

Donald Trump has only ever looked out for himself. This has been common knowledge since way before he ever entered the political arena. He is a man found liable for rape, and convicted in a court of law for more than thirty counts of white collar fraud. He isn’t like you and me, and he doesn’t care about you or me. Trump is a person who isn’t running because he wants to change America for the better, but because he realized that winning this election is the only way to keep himself out of jail. He is repugnant—the list of vile things he has said about women and non-white people is near-endless, and he incited violence against our elected representatives. He incited a violent mob at the Capitol, and made congresspeople fear for their lives, people we voted for hiding under desks or in broom closets. 

When Trump was told his supporters were storming the Capitol and wanted to kill his own Vice President, he said “So what?” He doesn’t consider anyone who disagrees with him to be worthy of simple liberties like living another day. He wants to deport legal immigrants and burn our economy to the ground. His pick for Vice President thinks women are subhuman, and the people he surrounds himself with want to create a registry of pregnant people to ensure abortion is punished.

Jill Stein is running a bad-faith campaign. She wants your vote because she benefits from the divisiveness and chaos another Trump term would bring. She doesn’t care about you, or the issues you care about. She doesn’t care about democracy. Stein thinks the war in Gaza can be solved with one phone call. She wants to bypass Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution to institute her own agenda. Her platform—if by some miracle did pass—would cost Americans even more than Trump; she doesn’t actually care about the working class. I encourage you to look at Stein’s website, and really think about what she wants to do. Because she doesn’t actually want to do anything; she exists just to draw the Democratic vote and mess around every four years. Jill Stein is one of the only people in politics less qualified to be President than Trump; she is a medical doctor who has never once won an election.

I understand that we are all frustrated with politics in America. We live in truly unprecedented times–everything seems to be going wrong, and we are all paying the price. Still, I implore you not to waste your vote on a candidate who does not care about you. Goucher is a vibrant and diverse community, known for its population of women and queer folks. It is our obligation to ourselves and our peers to stand up for freedom and personal liberties. A Trump victory would work endlessly to abolish healthcare for women and transgender people, as well as gut the Affordable Care Act, thereby removing thousands of people from their insurance coverage. A Trump victory would be catastrophic for all of us, and I am pleading with you to consider the realities of people who might be less fortunate than you when you cast your ballot.

Maryland has reproductive freedom on the ballot—Question 1 would enshrine it in our state constitution. But all of that work is meaningless if Trump wins and institutes a national abortion ban. Maryland might be a blue state, but no state in this country will be safe from Trump’s fascist agenda. It is crucial that we pass Question 1, but it’s even more important that we have a President who cares.

I love America, and I love freedom. Unfortunately, the reality is that both are under the threat of a man who would sleep well at night knowing he destroyed both. This is the most important election of our lifetimes. We must turn the page on Donald Trump, and his selfish, pseudo-leadership.

Election day is Tuesday, November 5th. Maryland has same day voter registration. It is not too late to make your voice heard! If you are from out of state, you can register with your Goucher address, and the nearest polling place will be at Towson University.

Love,

Felix

By Felix Knight, ‘27

Opinion: Locked In

by

In the annals of the past at Goucher College, I was free to roam the open pastures of every dorm building. Living in Trustees, I could not only access Trustees, but also Heubeck from dawn to dusk, permitted to graze the grasses with my fellow students. Now, in the year 2024, we are sectioned off and isolated from one another and our community is dying. Let us take a tour, a glance into the past, to see why things changed, and how they could be different.

I have conducted several interviews surrounding the topic of locked doors on campus. First, let’s focus on one I conducted with our Director of Campus Safety, Tiffany Justice. She has been at Goucher since 2017. The policy regarding locked doors in dorm buildings was updated in 2018, so she was quite knowledgeable on this topic. She states that what influenced the change was a “Bias Incident” happening in 2018.

Prying into this further, our Campus Climate Education Team (CCET) has listed as an example for Hate Crimes, a Goucher incident in 2018 that aligns with the “Bias Incident” Tiffany described, and she has confirmed that this was the incident. Whatever it was, it’s clear that hatred was spread in a dorm building, and Goucher’s response was to only allow students access to the dorm building in which they live.

Their logic follows like this: If someone writes slurs on the walls of Fireside hall, the most likely suspects are those 50 students who live in Fireside. If access were granted to the entire campus, that number would jump from 50 to 1000.

There are some flaws in this logic. The most blatant one is that not allowing someone into a dorm building does not actually stop them from getting in. We all know how it goes down– if I want to visit my friend in Alcock, I just sit outside like a lost puppy and wait for some foot traffic to come by and open the door. If someone is going to commit a hate crime, they will surely break lesser rules to do so. Onecard access does not stop the motivated hater.

Another flaw lies in the “most likely suspects” aspect. Whether or not someone has access to a dorm, the most likely culprit for a hate crime committed in P. Selz is still a student living in P. Selz. Studies analyzing and connecting where criminals commit crimes and where they live (Routine Activities Theory and Crime Pattern Theory) find that most criminals will commit crimes in the spheres they frequent the most. In the places the vandal knows the most about, they are more confident and capable to commit crimes there. Allowing non-residents access to these spaces does not stop this from being true. If someone lives in Jeffrey, they know when no one is roaming the halls, who lives there and how best to spread hate.

The most glaring problem, however, is that limited access to dorm buildings does not combat hate crimes in any real way. Limiting access inhibits and worsens our relations with each other. We get less opportunities to meet people who would broaden our horizons and challenge our views. The inability to mingle with strangers on campus who could change our perspectives makes people more likely to make false and hurtful assumptions about people. This is how hatred is born.

 A real way to combat hate crimes is to foster a community where people hold each other accountable and where dialogue is encouraged and allowed. Not allowing us to interact with students living in different dorms stops these developments in their tracks. Students in Welsh and students in Sondheim are not that different, but this severance imposes an identity onto the students living there, further rupturing our relations to one another. Enforcing isolation does nothing to stop the hatred found in one’s heart. Building a community where hate is discouraged and destabilized is something that does effectively combat hate crimes.

I am not saying that allowing dorms to be open to all students will magically stop hate crimes on campus. I am saying that allowing students to easily visit their friends and meet strangers that will challenge their biases will create a community where hate crimes are not accepted nor entertained. In a community where everyone knows one another, where ignorance must be actively strived for and knowledge is given out like free candy, hate crimes will actually be combatted at Goucher College.

Attached is an ancient scroll from Goucher’s past. From the bygone year of 2000, this was a posting found in Hooper that described the functionality of the new Onecard system. You can make out very little, but one part reads: “All residential houses will be under “closed access” [by default.] Houses can vote to “open” their house, however, status [will only be kept] until the end of this semester following the vote.” It also appears residential houses would have been able to choose what hours they wanted their doors open, and that the most likely time would be 7AM – 11PM, following Goucher’s quiet hours schedule. 

A more recent interview I conducted with our new Residential Life Director, Dr. Terrance Turner, regarding such a policy, echoes similar views to Tiffany’s. The following interview and dialogue over email could shed some light onto how the administration sees these problems.

I asked Dr. Turner the following: “If the determining factor is safety concerns, what do you have to say to the fact that other students not being able to get into other dorms leads to doors being propped open all the time, which is a much greater security risk than just having students being allowed into a dorm building?”

Dr. Turner’s response was this: “The foot traffic of guests in the open-door vs. guests through propped doors is something that’s difficult to track. Doors being propped open falls on the responsibility of those members in the community. We communicate that expectation and warn students of the potential risks. That is us addressing it.”

This response avoids the question I asked and puts responsibility upon the students. The students are willing to take on this responsibility. If students were informed of the potential risks of voting to have their dorm be an open dorm, it would be a better and safer way for ResLife to communicate and address this. 

I asked Dr. Turner: “What are your thoughts on how separating us in our dorms actually provide no protection from the things they say they do? Locking doors doesn’t stop a student from committing a hate crime. Locked doors do not stop someone, who is already breaking the rules, from getting into the building.”

Dr. Turner responded: “Controlling access to residential spaces serves as a key preventative measure in our comprehensive safety strategy. While it’s true that no system is foolproof, these measures act as a significant deterrent, making it harder for individuals who might intend harm to enter our buildings or residence hall rooms without detection. Limiting access helps ensure that only authorized individuals—those with legitimate reasons for being in the building—can gain entry, which in turn reduces opportunities for crime, including hate crimes.”

Is it right to assume that every student on campus is an “individual who might intend to do harm” by default? Community on campus is struggling because of a perceived divide– that some students are against others. This is simply not the case. A perspective that assumes some students are risks to other students villainizes the student body. Assuming most students are hooligans who wish to do harm creates antagonism detrimental to the campus environment. These measures are intended to add roadblocks to those who do intend to do harm, but in practice they are more like pebbles. But for those wanting to bridge connections between the student population, this is a permanent road closure. The community will never thrive if students are not allowed to feel like they are here together.

Upon further dialog, Dr. Turner responded:

“I want to be clear that safety concerns, particularly those related to residence hall access, are not up for a vote. The administration sets these policies to ensure the safety and well-being of all students, which is a responsibility I am not willing to compromise on. While voting on residence hall access is not an option, I would like to challenge and encourage you, as a student leader, to collaborate with your peers to find creative ways to enhance community building within the framework of our communicated policies. Opportunities for connection and interaction across campus must support both security and community goals that don’t compromise safety. While I appreciate your passion and engagement on this topic, I will not be responding further on this particular issue.”

This voting policy that gives autonomy to the students speaks to me in two parts. First, it gives us a view of the past and how much freedom we as students used to have over the place we call home for four years. Second, it provides us with hope for the future. A plausible experiment is presented here– how would we, 24 years later, fare with this kind of policy? This kind of policy requires the administration to trust us with a responsibility, but how can we ever prove that we are responsible enough if we are never given the chances needed to prove ourselves?

Onecard poster from 2000 found in Hooper.

By Jimy Kuhn, ’27

Opinion: The Q, The Election, and You

by
(Image Source: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Dear Reader,

While major papers like The Washington Post, USA today, and more neglect to endorse a presidential candidate, many of us in the Goucher community cannot afford to remain silent. 

In America, so much about the future of our country is determined by a single presidential candidate. Regardless of how you feel about it, the outcome of this election is predicted to be either Democrat Kamala Harris, or Republican Donald Trump. We know our student body. We know there is anger towards Harris and President Biden, and towards their words and actions during their ongoing term. We know there are those who would rather withhold their vote. We also understand the failings and limitations of a two-party system.

But we also know what a country under Donald Trump looks like. We know the need for, and the power of democracy. Goucher College prides itself on tolerance, diversity, and community. These are values that we at the Quindecim believe the whole nation, let alone all of humankind should prioritize. How can we uphold these values with a president who is comfortable inciting hate towards minority groups, and stripping Americans of their rights? We know that Trump intends to severely restrict reproductive rights, and criminalize abortion. We’ve seen how he encouraged a direct attack on our nation’s capital. We know the threat the The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 pose to all LGBTQ individuals. If you are someone who reads this newspaper, or considers yourself the least bit informed, you understand what kind of president he has, and could make. 

The Trump administration has posed a threat to journalists, too. They’ve seized the phone records of New York Times journalists, which discourages and threatens sources that help inform the public. Trump is also notorious for creating dangerous lies to uphold his own prejudices and ego. Needless to say, as  a coalition of student journalists, we know that our obligation is to our citizens (our Goucher community) and the truth, and Trump has the interest of neither in mind.

Simply put, we want you to show up on election day, and we want you to vote for the candidate who will shape our country in the next four years. We want to speak out where other corporate-owned publications refuse to. Vote for the competent candidate that is not running on a platform of openly sowing division and bigotry. Vote for the candidate that isn’t looking to set the progress made on bodily autonomy and civil rights backwards. That candidate is Kamala Harris. 

I also personally believe that we are far past due in having our first woman in The White House. I believe that she is a better representation of the average American than Trump could ever be. Many have said that writing an endorsement only by disparaging Trump rather than lauding Harris is “dispiriting,” and I would agree. But one commenter in the New York Times said it best, especially with the short time that Harris has been in the running– “I think it is fair to say that we still do not have a clear vision of Vice President Harris – but we have a very clear and present danger in Trump.”

Go out, go vote,
Sam Rose
Editor-in-chief, The Quindecim

Should Goucher Require a Course on Satire?

by
Image Source: DigitalVision Vectors via Getty

The Goucher community should seriously consider requiring every Goucher student and administrator to take a course on satire as an art form and type of societal/political commentary. 

In our modern, hyper-political, online, art filled, interconnected world, there is more than ever a need to have the skill to distinguish satire and understand its intentions. Goucher is a school that is very art focused and has its share of art on campus that I frankly do not understand. We are also a politically charged school that has a long history of activism. Goucher is a global school and there are many forms of satire that spread across borders and cultures. We have a large number of international students and have a 100% study abroad program. Especially on our unique campus, both administrators and students would benefit from taking a course on satire.

What is Satire? Robert C. Elliott defines Satire in his Britannica contribution as “an artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to inspire social reform.” All art is ripe for interpretation and misinterpretation and none more so than satire. I would argue that it is both the greatest and most boring form of comedy. And like most jokes, if it needs to be explained it can ruin the joke.

There are many ways such a satire course could work. It could be like the required Title IX training in the form of a short online course. It could be a set of lectures by our wonderful art and political science professors. Or as this college is looking to have intergenerational full semester courses, we could do the same with this idea. There are many generations between our students and Edenwald residents which our current administration fills the gaps. This could be an opportunity to build more connections between the often disconnected parts of our community.

2024 is also a year with elections happening across the globe. Over a hundred countries such as India, the European Union, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have/will hold large scale elections. In this global political landscape of change there is a lot of political and societal commentary, much of it is in the form of satire. In the Ath, we currently have a collection of political ephemera on display for a reason.

In an era of declining literacy, with more people failing to understand irony and satire, this is the time to guarantee that Goucher’s “global changemakers” understand these basic parts of media. Implementing this will help expand our incredible brand in new and interesting directions.

Tying together Art, Language learning, English, Political Science into a required interdisciplinary class fits well into our existing liberal arts brand.

What do you think? Do our administrators understand satire sufficiently, and if not should the college force them to join us in a class on it? Do you understand satire and irony? Do your friends? Do your friends’ friends comprehend satire? Should everyone be required to take a course as described here? If you have thoughts please share them with me, the Provost & Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Elaine Meyer-Lee, Dean Smith, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies Dr. Isabel Moreno-Lopez, and if you see him maybe President Kent might have thoughts. I know he is busy addressing Miriam Katowitz (the chair of the board of trustees financial committee)’s impractical idea of reintroducing the dance requirement for all students.

-Max Ravnitzky, ’28

Addressing Aversions to Ancient Aliens

by
Image Source: Jimy Kuhn

Earlier this semester, Goucher announced a partnership with our neighbors at Edenwald senior living, with the intent to construct an Undergraduate Retirement Community (URC) on leased Goucher land.  In this edition, we have a wonderful piece discussing the nuts and bolts of this partnership, but here I would like to discuss the multiple opinions surrounding this development. 

Many students’ initial reaction to this partnership is not positive. This partially comes from the several concerns revolving around allowing the older generation into our community and our classrooms. Many current students, for example, want to know how prospective Edenwald students will be prepared to enter our existing community, especially regarding respect to our queer students and students of color. Qualms in this realm have concrete solutions: There are plans to have a multi-day orientation teaching these prospective students about our community values and informing them of the inclusivity of the modern age. Importantly, there will be a focus on pronoun usage and respect toward marginalized people, while also teaching more ordinary things, like how to use Canvas. 

The other cause for this negative perspective comes from a tendency of staunch ageism in our current age. Some of this comes from a place of validity; members of our queer community, for example, are concerned due to the fact that the older generation has been historically unaccepting of their identities.  Outside of Goucher, queer people still need to fight to find their space and to be seen, but here at Goucher these students feel able to be seen and to belong. It is true that the older generation is, in certain sects, unaccepting of the queer community, but these will not be the people we are inviting onto this campus.  However, in the same stroke, if we treat these people like the villains we perceive them to be, that is exactly what they will become. I would ask readers to reframe their thoughts and give these people a chance to prove us wrong. 

This construction begs the question why. Why is Goucher doing this? How can the powers that be focus on performing an experiment in academia when community is dying on this campus? Putting efforts towards this partnership for people who are currently outside of our community ought to come after we are able to address the concerns of the people who are currently here. How can we find the time and effort to spend on a URC, the first one in all of Maryland, but not be able to have Alice’s Cafe open? If the logic states that we cannot focus on community because we lack money and we are focusing on the URC because it makes us money, how can we ensure that the money Goucher earns is spent on the community?  This seems to be another case of Goucher having a blind spot towards the needs of our community, and because they do not see us, they just look away. 

By Jimy Kuhn, ’27

Does Sally Rooney Still Have It? Intermezzo Review

by
Image Source: Boston Globe

Sally Rooney is an award-winning Irish novelist who writes contemporary fiction, primarily about romantic relationships, economic class, and how interpersonal relationships affect those around us. Both her novels Conversations with Friends and Normal People have been adapted into TV Shows, and her third book Beautiful World, Where Are You? won the Goodreads award for ‘Best Fiction’ in 2021. 

It’s been three years since her last book, and now the world has Intermezzo. I’m here to talk about whether or not the hype, both on and offline, still holds up. 

Intermezzo follows two brothers, Peter and Ivan. Peter is a lawyer who is in his thirties, struggling to balance the relationships between his first love Sylvia who he still pines for, and grad student Naomi ,who doesn’t seem to be taking her life too seriously. Ivan, a competitive chess player at twenty-two who sees his older brother has inferior due to his own social awkwardness, meets Margaret. An older woman who has a complicated past of her own and very quickly becomes wrapped up in his life. 

Despite being brothers, they seem to have nothing in common. After losing their father, the two now grieve and their relationship takes unexpected turns. 

Rooney’s way of writing characters that feel like real people is astounding. The dialogue between all of these characters plays real, and Peter and Ivan’s dynamic has so many complexities to it that also play real. 

Her ability to put the spotlight on so many characters is impressive as well. As the reader, you are able to not only learn all about Peter and Ivan, but also Sylvia, Margaret, and Naomi. There is so much depth in the cast of characters, and I wish the book didn’t end. 

Rooney’s writing style is more striking and emotional than ever. I loved the way she explored grief, complicated family dynamics, and love in this novel. Some of it hit close to home for me, and I know it will hit close to home for so many other readers as well. 
Now, Sally Rooney is known for using no quotation marks and not many indents in her novels. This still holds true in Intermezzo, which certainly makes it a challenging read, but I would still highly recommend it. Rooney can do no wrong when it comes to picking up a pen, and I would say this is her best novel yet.

By Merryn Overbeck, ’28

1 2 3 13
Go to Top