The independent student newspaper at Goucher College

Category archive

Opinion - page 3

Unanswered Questions: Opinion

by
Image Source: Pexels

As a first-year student, my initial experience of Goucher’s campus felt almost idyllic,  with its nature trails, amazing food (at least I think so), and kind, engaging professors. However, it didn’t take long for the pristine little bubble of perfection I had built to burst,  leaving me wondering, “What did I get myself into?” 

The day of the vigil hosted in solidarity of Palestine I was astonished because I  gleaned that some faculty at Goucher were told to work from home. Based on rumors and what I had read from the Quindecim about last year’s protest, informing faculty to avoid campus seemed a bit extreme. If they believed their safety was at risk, why didn’t the entire campus get a notice to stay home? Do the students of this campus endanger the well-being of faculty? Did the safety of the faculty matter more than the safety of the students?  By talking to the leaders of the vigil, I got the sense they wanted to spread awareness of the genocide in Palestine and Goucher’s involvement in censorship of students. Nothing in their words made me think they wanted to instill fear or unravel the safety of this campus.  

I admire the effort it took for the vigil coordinators to bring it to life. Not only had they attracted a decently sized audience, but they had also filled the time with well-thought-out speeches, poems, and anecdotes. I am sure I don’t stand alone in deciding to attend college because of my ambitions to contribute to a more just society. I believe Goucher should foster the passion and dedication that students already have to bring awareness to pressing issues. Scrolling through Goucher’s websites I stumbled upon the progressive history of Goucher as a women’s college. At its heart, Goucher has always embraced change, and its students embody similar sentiments. For this reason, I am perplexed by the administration’s efforts to thwart activism. If we truly aim to continue Goucher’s forward-thinking legacy, we must support instead of oppressing efforts to address pressing issues of our time.  

-Cadita Attipoe, Concerned Student of the Class of 2028

One Year On: Reflections of the Events of October Seventh

by
Image Source: The Jerusalem Post


As we celebrate the Jewish New Year, we must remember October 7th, 2023, which was a devastating day for all: Israelis, Palestinians, and those in the Arab and Jewish diaspora. The event simultaneously marked the largest single-day massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It also marks the ongoing massacre and violence against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Since October 7th, Antisemitism and Islamophobia have been on the rise everywhere, especially in the U.S. The following stories are coming from the Jewish community at Goucher. I tried to contact Jewish students from a non-Hillel standpoint, but they sadly never got back to me. 

For myself, I remember the total shock to my core. I also recall feeling distressed because I have family in Israel and was worried about their safety and those of the hostages. I still am. In the following weeks, I constantly contacted one of my cousins to ensure they were alive and well. Like many Jewish people, I suffered from Antisemitism. No one wanted to work with or collaborate with the only Jewish organization on campus, Hillel, due to the conflict. It was hard for me because Hillel has given me so much. I have met and made wonderful lifelong friends at Hillel. I also got leadership experience from Hillel. For me, Hillel isn’t just an organization but a community. I know it may seem challenging; All grief is valid, but we shouldn’t hurt one another using it.  We’ve had so much lost; bring the hostages home!

When Rachel Haggard, a political science major, learned about the tragic events that took place in Israel on October 7th, she thought back to a trip she took with her high school to Israel just 18 months prior. “I remember visiting a town in the south, close to the border with Gaza, called Sderot. I hope all the incredible people I met during that trip were safe.” One year later, Rachel is still heartbroken that one hundred and one innocent people are still being held hostage, and families in Gaza are still suffering. She continues to pray for the release of the remaining hostages and an end to hostilities in the region.

The last reflection is from Tova Vacknin, a junior studying psychology and minoring in studio art. “It’s been a year, a year since Hamas terrorists invaded communities, homes, and a music festival by means of land, air, and sea to kill as many people as they possibly could. A year since homes were destroyed, people displaced, and hostages taken. A year since unsuspecting dancing people from all walks of life suddenly heard screams, gunshots, and the sounds of their friends dying beside them, knowing they would be next. A year since I got the news from my family that they had to hide from gunmen and run for their lives, barely making it out alive. A year of war, a year of violence, a year of suffering. It has been a year since October 7th, but we carry it with us every day. The echoes of the screams from October 7th will never quiet until we realize that human life matters more than destroying it.” Tova finishes our interview by saying, “מחזירים אותם הביתה עכשיו,” which means bring them home now!

By Sara Begelman, ’26

Goucher Students’ “Vigil for Palestine” Makes Waves

by


Vigil for Palestine attendees holding distributed posters. Photo by Sam Rose.

The gray, damp, weather reflected the somber gathering of students and faculty in front of the Mary Fisher Dining Hall on Friday, September 27th.

On the week of September 23rd, two emails were sent out to the undergraduate student body, faculty, and staff. The first email, sent on Wednesday, September 25th  was sent by the Office of Equity and Inclusive Excellence. It informed the student body about the policy surrounding posters and printed material, as well as the updated Campus Demonstration Policy, which the email stated was “reviewed this summer with student input.”

The second communication was sent by President Kent Devereaux, entitled “Goucher College and Free Speech,” reiterated the sentiments expressed in the previously mentioned email. It informed recipients that Goucher College “has a fundamental right to limit the time, place, and manner of demonstrations of free speech,” and that students who fail to follow these policies will face the consequences outlined in the Student Code of Conduct.

These emails set the expectations for the advertised “Vigil for Palestine,” the first organized student activist demonstration since the semester began. The Office of Equity and Inclusive Excellence’s email reported that the flyers for the event had been removed for not meeting the policy’s requirements. Despite this, flyers remained in some harder-to-spot locations around campus, and the Goucher Liberation Collective group advertised the vigil through their Instagram page.

The first slide of this aforementioned Instagram post was identical to the physical fliers that had been posted and removed. The second slide, which was visible online and in less widely circulated fliers, provided further detail and cause for the assembly. “Goucher college and Hillel International normalize this colonial and imperialist violence by hosting exchanges with Israeli students, without giving context to the state of Israel’s history of colonization and crimes against humanity in the Middle East,” a portion of the text read. 

Goucher Hillel sent out an email on September 11th, which informed Hillel members that on the 27th, the same day of the Vigil for Palestine, Goucher Hillel would be hosting visiting students from Sapir College, an Israeli public college.

At 1:00pm, around thirty students, professors, and faculty joined in a circle right outside the dining hall entrance, unfurling a banner bearing the Palestinian flag. The organizers of the event made use of an amplifier and microphone to address the crowd. The first speaker referred back to last year’s display of student activism, a series of posters put up by an artist with the pseudonym Decades and Oceans. The posters had been removed, but the remaining ones were passed out among the crowd, and students were encouraged to display them in their personal dorm window, where the Campus Demonstration Policy does not have sovereignty.

A member of the Goucher Liberation Collective, who organized the vigil, identified herself as Elise. She acknowledged over the microphone that the event does actively violate the campus demonstration, but claimed that the Collective publicized their contact information, gave five days of prior notice about the demonstration, and gave the college as means to contact the organizers directly. “It’s been difficult for me to live as if everything is normal,” Elise stated, explaining the necessity of the vigil to her.

Several speakers who did not identify themselves by name took to the microphone as well. One student discussed their Palestinian family history, and how they had not felt accepted as a Palestinian student at Goucher. “Once I joined the encampment, I found my people.”

Another student objected to the supposed “entirely false and cruel narrative about student protestors” that they felt the administration created following during the spring semester, and spoke out against the language that was being used in communications by President Devereaux, as well as by Goucher Hillel.

“They try to frame our opposition to war crimes as an act of ideological extremism,” said one speaker. “You cannot be neutral on the genocide of Palestinians.”

Identifying themselves as an alum from the class of 2024, another demonstrator read several selections of poetry. Among these selections was “The Perplexing Smiles of the Children of Palestine,” by Marcellus Williams, who was executed just days prior for a crime with no concrete forensic evidence linking him as the perpetrator. Another piece read was “Oh Rascal Children of Gaza,” by Khaled Juma.

The vigil remained in front of Mary Fisher Dining Hall, and did not relocate or enter any of the buildings. This was in contrast to the alleged preparations that Goucher employees were told to take, specifically workers who were normally stationed in Dorsey Center and Mary Fisher. Offices such as the Office of Admissions were accessible only by approved OneCards. 

One IT employee from the class of 2025, who chose to remain anonymous for the sake of their continued employment, spoke about the communication they had received prior to the vigil. “We got a message on [Microsoft] Teams saying that we were not to work in Dorsey Center today, and that we were supposed to work in the Ath.” 

Another IT employee from the class of 2025, anonymous for the same justification, detailed the student employees’ reaction to the announcement. “All staff are working from home because of a so-called demonstration,” the employee said. “When we found out about this, pretty much all of the student workers were laughing about it.”

After the speakers had finished, the names of deceased Palestinian families, killed by Israel’s offensive attacks, were read aloud for five minutes. This list started with adults, and finished with children and infants, including victims under one year old. “[Reading them] would take days to finish,” said the student reading the names, disputing the possibility of reading a full list of the deceased in Gaza. Candles were passed around the circle, though due to the inclement weather conditions, they were not lit.

Some individuals observed from outside the circle, or stood to the side. Thirty minutes into the vigil, a moment of silence began. This silence was shortly broken by Professor Zahi Khamis, professor-in-practice of the Arabic Studies department, who had been only observing until then. 

Requesting to end the silence, Professor Khamis informed the crowd that he is Palestinian, and that the work of the student activists is meaningful to him. “I want to honor you and ask you to keep doing what you are doing,” he said, “Without that, the genocide will go on to no end.” Professor Khamis concluded only with, “I love you all.”

Following the conclusion of the vigil and the conclusion of the week, no further communication was sent out concerning the Campus Demonstration Policy, or concerning free speech at Goucher.

By Sam Rose ’26

Erroneous Emails: Opinion

by

The past few weeks we have been bombarded by emails. I would like to give some context to two emails, one sent from Isabelle Moreno-Lopez, our Interim VP for Equity & Inclusive Excellence, and one from our president Kent Deveraux, both regarding our tenacious policies regarding posters and demonstrations.

Some context before the context: The Office of Equity and Exclusive Excellence is currently in a state of transition after our previous VP for Inclusive Excellence, Jasmine Lee, left Goucher over the summer. In the interim, Isabelle Moreno-Lopez has stepped up to be our VP for Inclusive Excellence while we find a viable replacement. Isabelle is the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Students and also led the Policy Committee over the summer.

 Our Policy Committee is a committee consisting of many members of administration, and this summer there were two student representatives, Christian Houck, Vice President of the SGA, and I. I joined specifically in order to stop student’s posters from requiring a stamp to be put up, and to try and update our controversial demonstration policy. This took us all summer to do, it wasn’t until the very last Policy Committee meeting that we officially discussed both these policies due to the bureaucratic nature of this committee. Last note, the Policy for Posting Printed Materials was drafted with student input first by SGA after a town hall meeting last semester and was rewritten by Isabelle-Moreno-Lopez for the committee. 

From Isabelle,

“As you might have already heard, there is a call for a demonstration on Friday. The flyers were removed when they were reported for not including Goucher contact information, and for not being placed on bulletin boards. Please make sure to follow the Policy for Posting Printing Materials on the Goucher Towson Campus which was written with student input…Demonstrations can be scheduled following the Campus Demonstration Policy, which was also reviewed this summer with student input.”

This was in reference to the vigil held on Friday, September 27th by members of our community. While this was not done with permission of the administration and to call this a demonstration may not be correct. See Sam Rose’s article in this edition for more in depth details.

The Poster Policy referenced above gives FMS the ability to remove posters from unauthorized locations if, and only if, they determine them to be a fire hazard. Goucher FMS seems to think that posters posted on the metal poles outside Mary Fisher are a fire hazard, which is ridiculous. The part about not including Goucher contact information is more substantial however. In an email to the policy committee from Dean Smith, he stated that “For security purposes and to ensure all information sharing is protected, sending sensitive student or community related information to non-Goucher email addresses compromises the integrity of our community.” Therefore, allowing only non-Goucher contact information on posters is out of the question, but requiring every poster to have contact information, especially when it is unnecessary, could be up for debate.

From Kent Deveraux,

“Over the summer we worked very diligently, and with extensive student input, to incorporate any such limits in our updated Campus Demonstration Policy and the new Policy for Posting Printed Materials.”

I would like to speak specifically on the value both of these emails put on student input. In the original draft of the Poster Policy, Chrisitan and I had to defend our thoughts fiercely, tooth and nail, in order to represent the students’ voices. To her credit however,  when Isabelle rewrote the policy for the committee meeting, it included many things that the students wanted, most importantly not needing a stamp to put up a flier. Yet, the policy as it stands still allows student’s posters to be taken down from popular posting spots because they are ludicrously deemed to be a fire hazard. I am unsure if the administration is willing to value student input especially in light of the following.

After the policy committee approves the policy, compromises and all, it gets submitted to the President’s Cabinet for approval, where they apparently have the ability to change the policy however they want. 

Once the Poster Policy was submitted to the president’s cabinet, they decided to add wordage on handing out flyers, which included requiring a student who wants to hand out a pamphlet, piece of paper, to submit their “name, ID and Goucher email; (2) date of the event request; (3) location (Athenaeum-outside or lobby, Mary Fisher Lobby, Van Meter Highway, Welsh Patio); (4) start and end time; (5) set up and clean up time; (6) purpose for tabling; and (7) number of tables and chairs.” This wordage is treating handing out flyers as a demonstration, as these are the same requirements for requesting a demonstration. 

This salient section was added without informing the policy committee, nor the students who made this policy. The students had no say in one of the most controversial segments of this new policy. How can you value student input, when you deliberately subvert the student’s voices in this important issue?

As to the Demonstration Policy, we reviewed the policy but did not have time to thoroughly defend the student’s issues with the policy. We were told that the president’s cabinet had to send out an email saying the Demonstration Policy was reviewed with student input over the summer. This email was sent out on August 20th from the president, saying “I am pleased to report that our Policy Committee revised our demonstration, social media, and poster distribution polices with input from three student leaders who volunteered to serve on the committee over the summer. I am confident that these updated policies which will be posted within the week will better reflect the aspirations and values of our campus community.” 

We approved the Demonstration Policy with reservations, without many substantial changes, so that the president could send out an email saying thus. It was only approved so the President could send that email, not because the students would be satisfied with the changes made and I am not too certain that the updated Demonstration Policy actually better reflects the student’s values.

In our Policy on Policies, it states that “Any member of the college community may make a recommendation to develop or update a policy. These recommendations should be submitted for approval to policies@goucher.edu.” I encourage any member of this community to reach out to Policies if they feel that any policy sucks or does not reflect the climate on this campus. This of course should not be your only action, policies only change so much, but making sure these people hear your voice, and hear everyone’s voice, is an important step in changing this Goucher community for the better.

A bulletin board, one of the few approved locations to post flyers on campus.

By Jimy Kuhn ’27

Taming Adaptation: Tips from an Under-qualified Fan

by
The Percy Jackson TV show. Image Credit: Disney

Growing up Demi-God

Think of a story, any story that you love to revisit over and over. The one that you return to when you need to fill your belly. Now imagine someone gave you thousands of dollars and told you to remake it. Your demands; make it better, yet the same. Adaptation is a tricky beast to train, often so large and looming that creators lose their purpose in the fight, winding up with a great, big pile of confusion. There are so many elements to consider and keep in place. When setting out to adapt material successfully, you must first arm yourself with a goal. Ask the right questions to find your version of the story. Why are you retelling the story? What are the most important elements of the original story? What type of original medium are you adapting? What medium are you using to adapt, and how can you use that medium to your advantage?

Percy Jackson is a series that I read for the first time when I was around 7 years old. I had already watched the movie which had come out earlier in the year and found it pretty entertaining. A mild echo of the magic I felt watching Harry Potter for the first time. Afterwards, I decided to visit the written story. It was different from the movie; better, in my humble opinion. The point of view was relatable, engaging, and funny. The story was fantastical and made me feel like I was in the shoes of a hero, and had the ability to walk in them. After one read-through, I was hooked, getting that high reread after reread. Finding myself in the prose. I connected deeply with the character of Annabeth, as a witty, tomboyish girl with ADHD. I found her to be all the things that I loved the most about myself, helping me to decide what traits to lean into as I grew. 

 By the end of the year, I had reread the whole series at least 3 times. I felt like a wiz kid for Greek mythology (we all knew that one fan) and it was one of the first times I felt I got respect from adults for my knowledge on something; which was hard to get as a kid, and even harder to get as a young girl. I played mock capture the flag with my brother in my backyard, swinging foam swords. I made spit-filled sound effects with my mouth as I imagined myself as the child of the two main characters, controlling water like Percy, waves crashing down on imagined enemies. My brother and I would huddle, as if in the middle of a football game, figuring out a strategy before running out to battle, like Annabeth. In my formative years, I needed material like this to shape my self worth. I felt that I could be these heroes; I could be respected for my intellect; and my actions could be led by my care for my friends and my bravery.

And then I became an expert movie critic. I had long conversations with the other 10 year olds on the validity of the movie adaptation. How they had “messed up” the casting, story, and characters. I followed the publishing of new books in the universe, reading and rereading the Heroes of Olympus spinoff series as they were published. I watched delightedly, as the material matured with me. At the same time, I grew a deep seeded hatred for the movie and how it had stunted the ability to adapt the rest of the series faithfully. I was brutal in my love for the original material.

So, when the TV series was announced a little more than ten years later, my 17 year old self was ecstatic. I very quickly relapsed and read the entirety of both the original series and the spin off series, a total of 10 books. I imagined how I would adapt these stories, images of scenes flashing behind my eyes as if on a TV screen. What parts of the story would I keep and highlight? Which parts of the story made it so engaging for me? Which parts of the story could be left to the books? How might I characterize other characters whose point of views we don’t get in the original? Would I add a flashback where in the book there is exposition?  

It’s in the habit of a fan to imagine how the material should be in an adaptation. Especially because the source material is usually something that fans hold dear to their heart as an early edition to their collections of art they love that they have accumulated. For fans who have nostalgia attached to a story, often, the source material may have influenced how they decided to shape themselves and their interests, and their preference in art making. Because an adaptor is challenged to change the essence of the art in some way more personal to them, it can directly contrast with the things other fans were attached to in the original material and their expectations for how they would personally retell the story. These expectations and attachments are the biggest challenge an adaptor has to contend with.

Meet the Beast

In my view, the first thing you must understand as a creator to navigate adapting material is to set a goal for your story. Your goal must answer the question of why you are even retelling the story in the first place. In the case of Percy Jackson, I would say that the goal in adapting the books is to tell a faithful remake (redeeming the movies) which captures the magic of the original story and allows for the story to grow with the audience as it once grew with the readers. But that’s easier said than done. So how do you turn that goal into a reality? You must first gain a deeper understanding of the original material. You must love the source material in order to make something loved out of it. You must ask the questions: What are the essential elements of the story? What are the expectations and attachments of the fans of the original material? What is the central message? Who are the characters, really? Why is it so well loved? What can be delved into deeper, changed, made better? 

A personal favorite recent adaptation is The Last of Us. Released about a year before the percy jackson series premiere, the video game adaptation excited many fans about the potential of the future of good adaptations. The writers of The Last of Us knew that the best way to answer these questions is to do so using your new medium and your new team of creators to your advantage. Have long discussions within the writers room as fans of the source material. Use the opportunity for conversation and building creativity to ask each other those questions, and listen and analyze each other’s answers. Having a team of diverse writers who are fans of the source material, and working on an adaptation, is like having a built-in tap to the fanbase. It can help you figure out what elements made the original so good, and how you can replicate those specific elements. Diversity and the simple addition of more minds to the conversation can help form ideas of how to make the material relatable to more people. Additionally, having more writers can help to find and address any weaknesses or errors in the original material that can be resolved. As you write, If any element, any scene of your adaptation does not add anything to help address one or multiple of our questions, then that scene needs to be rewritten. 

Of course, adaptation, and the addition of new ideas comes with change, the oh so ever dreaded change. A whole writer’s room of opinions on what the answers to those questions are for them. (how much i would have loved to be a part of it) As a fan, I can say that in some ways you do want a direct transference of everything in the book, but in others, I want something new to chew on, it can’t be exactly the same. Calming the nerves of fans when an adaptation is announced is made easier by having the writer of the original series in your corner to give good faith to your choices, and advising from the perspective of an expert creative for the story.  

This is something both the Percy Jackson series and The Last of Us series benefitted from. Additionally, having the original creator as part of the writing team is an excellent opportunity for them to make changes with hindsight. 

With an adaptation, you aren’t just tasked with telling the same story, you are tasked to tell it better. With the time that you have to capture the audience, you can delve deeper into themes, characters, and ideas from the source material. You can set things up that you know will gain significance with the story. You can use the writer’s room input to see where each individual’s interest in the story leads them in themes, characters, and storylines.

 Use that to your advantage to surprise the people already familiar with the story, and to make something original. However,  when you make changes to the story you have to keep in mind what you are gaining, and what you are losing. With so little time you have to condense the source material. Don’t get me wrong, condensing of the material does not mean chopping bits off of the story. It means that in a shorter amount of time or with less exposition, you have to maintain tone, the central theme, essential story elements, and the characters.

In The Last of Us, the creator uses the opportunity to retell his story in TV format to merge an extra material release of the game into the main story by giving it a whole episode, adding extra context to the original story. The writers of the show understood that with the change to TV, they wanted to focus more on the monstrosity of humanity than the fungal zombies that permeate the world. It’s in line with the storytelling of the game, where the hardest hitting moments are not in the action sequences where you mow down zombies with a rifle. The game hits the deepest emotionally when it focuses on interactions between humans fighting for their lives and it asks the moral questions that arise from those situations. The TV show uses the zombies sparingly, making it all the more impactful and terrifying when they do show up. By editing out a lot of the gameplay, the show also gives the audience more time spent in certain settings and scenes on storytelling, where you may have in the video game had less time with the characters in cutscenes or walked through as a character without much story interaction.

The television show writers changed details to make it hurt even more (in the best ways). Like making Sam and Henry’s relationship deeper and more vulnerable by making Sam deaf and younger, and more reliant on Henry for communication and protection. Additionally, the show ventures into making the material more diverse by more explicitly stating the homosexuality of two beloved characters from the original, Ellie and Bill. Through the show, the universe gets expanded. The audience gets to see the facial expressions and the backstories of the characters. The show pushes harder on themes of fighting for another person. We see the vastness of the desperation that has overtaken the world, and we see new people with new perspectives within the context of this fight and desperation for survival. It makes the storytelling more complex, more evocative, and more real.

With changes to the story, you’ll get pushback, from the tiniest detail to the larger themes. For The Last of Us it was harassment of cast members due to perceived physical differences from their characters, rage at the “woke-ness,” of depicting a LGBTQ+ character, and longing for the action and the violence of the gameplay. The fan outrage at casting seems to be a common theme that keeps popping up with each new adaptation getting announced, the complaint being similar to that of complaints about adaptations in general. “Keep everything how it is, or how I imagined it to be.” 

One example of this that keeps me eternally amused is the outrage that happened online after the casting was announced for Rue in The Hunger Games in 2013 as a young black girl, only for many to find out they had missed multiple lines in the book specifically describing the character as black. But the vile that these primarily young people of color face at the announcement of what should be a momentous achievement in their careers, continues to spew in 2023, turning their achievements into inexcusable trauma.

(Speaking of fan outrage, a short note on the racism that met the casting of Annabeth)

When I saw the casting of Annabeth, in truth, I was a little disappointed. I grew up reading the books where Annabeth is specifically described as a blond, white girl. I am perfectly interchangeable to Annabeth with that description. I found the portrayal of a blonde with ADHD and dyslexia who is fierce, funny, athletic, capable, and wise, highly refreshing. I found people fitting my outward appearance were often portrayed in the media as incapable and stupid. She was specifically written to war against the “dumb blond,” idea. That being said, upon brief reflection, I quickly came to a couple conclusions. First, that I have my Annabeth from the books still, the TV show doesn’t erase it. Secondly, since the book’s release I have seen so many more strong wise characters who look like me. Thirdly, and most importantly, young black women haven’t seen enough. The TV show portrayal still pushes against misogyny and how it teaches people to see women and girls as less capable; but now it also fights a larger fight against how racism teaches people to see people (especially young women) who are black as less capable of greatness or intelligence. I found with this edition of Annabeth, another layer was added to her character as a young black woman. Annabeth being black or white has no real change on her character or what it represents, except to deepen the conversation around societal views of young girls’ intelligence. 

 However, I have a note of caution for the creators. In the books it’s understood that Annabeth is mature for her age and typically takes on more of a leadership role. But with the change of race, there is also an implication of the effect of the social adultification of black girls on Annabeth. I found it interesting how the change of race can deepen the themes and storytelling for this facet of Annabeth’s character. It’s unclear how intentional the addressing of this racial undertone is in the first season, but I am hopeful that it will be addressed further as the show continues to be released. 

In the last conversation between Annabeth and Percy this season she says, “is there something I’m supposed to do?” He smiles and responds, “Just, be a kid.” The more intentionally the writers consider Annabeth’s race, the more impactful these character interactions can be. The change in race can actually serve to help more kids with their daily struggles, and to show more kids that they can be heroes no matter where they come from. The best way to do this going forward is to make sure that colorblind casting does not lead to colorblind storytelling. 

Journeying On

Upon reflection, there are quite a few things that I would have changed about the TV show had I been given creative control. Namely, I think the show could have done more to answer the question, What medium are you using to adapt, and how can you use that medium to your advantage?  This is something The Last of Us does extremely successfully. In a movie, the creators are challenged to take content from one form and squeeze it into a set amount of time and movie pacing. 

While a TV show’s run time often mirrors the format of the original media. For example, one can split up book events into chapters or video games into levels. A TV show can follow this pacing per episode. Using the extra amount of screen time in a TV show format, The Last of Us were able to use full episodes to go further in depth on characters and show us flashbacks and divergent point of views. When I heard Percy Jackson was going to be a TV show, I was ecstatic. The way the chapters in the books all ended on mini cliffhangers, the characters encounter a kind of monster-a-week format, and you grow up with the characters as you consume the story, it was all perfectly suited towards a TV show adaptation.

But when I watched the first season of the Percy Jackson show, my biggest complaint became the overall length of the season. I found the pacing of the story to be off in places, and I think with more run time or episodes they could really find their footing and delve deeper into the story. This was especially apparent in moments when the characters depart exposition in their past that could have easily been a flashback. When The Last of Us started their writing process, they created an understanding between how the TV and video game storytelling would be different based on the medium. They decided that the main difference would be the fact that you would be without the gameplay of the video game, so they either have to merge gameplay and storytelling moments into one scene or just get rid of the action that the gameplay brings.

I would identify for Percy Jackson the main advantage in this adaptation to TV would be the opportunity to step out of the point of view of Percy as the narrator in the books. I think if they had identified and worked towards showing the perspectives of more characters in the world, the show could improve in terms of its expansion of the story. I worry if they maintain the same run time or episode amount for the next season they will have a problem on their hands as the books only get longer and more mature. 

While watching the first four episodes, I kept getting caught up in my head about what I wish they would have done and what I would have done in their place. I found myself liking the episodes but feeling a little disappointed. If this was you watching the show, I highly suggest a rewatch.  When I rewatched the first four episodes before continuing onto episode five, the block of expectation was dissolved and I felt the thrill of the story. With adaptation or spinoffs, I always find that love on second sight can happen. I connected to the characters more the second time through, appreciating the minutiae of writing and acting that made them themselves. 

I saw how the creators had managed to use the medium to their advantage with the monster-a-week feel. I saw how they used the adaptation as an opportunity to flesh out the motives of the villain early on (which Riordan hadn’t thought of before writing the last book). We see Sally Jackson a bit more outside of Percy’s eyes in this show, spending a lot more time with her and showing how complex her feelings are. The writers changed scenes to make sure the themes taken away from certain challenges the characters go through are consistent. Like how at the thrill ride of love, in the book, it’s a scene where Percy sees Annabeth’s weakness for the first time in her fear of spiders, Percy learns a story that puts the gods in a bad light, and they learn to trust each other in the moment of action.

 In the TV series, there’s a bit more depth, with Percy and Annabeth fighting to sacrifice themselves for the quest, Percy puts his full trust in Annabeth to complete the quest without him and expresses his belief that she is the more capable of the two of them. Additionally, in this scene, they meet Hephaestus and learn that the Gods have layers, some don’t want to be bad, which becomes an important theme as the story progresses and Percy’s perspective of the Gods as good and bad shifts. By making informed choices about what to change, the series is able to expand on the original material and be more intentional in which themes to focus on setting up.

 The TV series set their goals and answered their questions. Rick says in the behind the scenes documentary, they wanted “viewers all over the world can look at this show and say, ‘I could be Annabeth Chase, or Grover,’ and to see, you can be a hero no matter what you look like, no matter what your personal challenges are, no matter where you come from.”  Above all, the most important thing that I wanted from watching the series was to experience the magic that lived within my tiny body when I read the books the first time, and every time after that. The creators of the show knew that the story, in essence, was made as a father telling a bedtime story to comfort his son who was struggling with learning differences and let him know that he could do great things. And when the screen went black, the music began, and I heard Percy’s voice- his real voice, begin the opening monologue of the book “Look, I didn’t want to be a half blood, being a half-blood is dangerous, most of the time it gets you killed in painful nasty ways.” I felt the energy buzz beneath my skin, like a kid again, with youth in my limbs. I imagine myself small, receiving a comforting hug after a bedtime story.  

By Kathryn Ice-Johnson, ’25

Banned Buddy-Swipes: Buffoonery

by

Early this semester, a sign was placed in Mary Fisher Dining Hall and in the Student Market alerting students that meal swipes are meant only to be used for the student who is swiping. This meant that swiping a meal for someone else, like buying a meal for your friend, which was commonly called buddy swiping, was not allowed anymore. It’s not entirely correct to say it was not allowed anymore, it was never technically allowed but it was never enforced. Due to the nature of our contract with Bon Appetit, and our Housing and Dining Policy, this change could last for several years. 

In an email to members of our administration regarding this, I stated the following: 

“I think this is ridiculous. Students pay for their meals and get a certain number of swipes to do whatever they please with. This is why it’s okay for me to use a meal swipe to go up to the dining hall and just get a cup of coffee or even nothing at all just to chat with friends. If a student decides they want to use their own meal swipe to swipe for another student, that is their own decision, we are adults! We pay for our meal swipes and should be allowed to use them as we see fit. Furthermore, this allows students to help other students if they get themselves in a pickle. Allowing students to use our meal swipes to help another student in need strengthens our community and helps everyone feel like we actually care about one another on this campus. Prohibiting this seems just the opposite.” 

In response, members of administration informed me that we would not be able to change this until next year or possibly several years, expertly sidestepping my remarks about how this damages our community on campus, An email from President Kent Deveraux in response said that “The contract with Bon Appetit is a long-term, multi-year engagement that was negotiated prior to my arrival and is not up for renewal for years.” 

Further in that same email from President Deveraux, he states that this recent enforcement stems from “several incidents we had last year where some students who had purchased unlimited meal plans abused those plans by using them to swipe in other students as well. That’s like going to an ‘all you can eat buffet’ — a uniquely ‘only in America’ concept I might add — and paying one price for one person and then having all your friends eat for free. That clearly is, to use Jimy’s characterization, ridiculous.”

An obvious solution would be to not allow people with unlimited meal swipes to swipe for other people. But this would be difficult as our current system apparently can not tell if someone has an unlimited meal plan or not, according to David Friedlich, the General Manager from Bon Appetit. 

Another solution is to have built in buddy swipes in our meal plans, which President Deveaux also addressed in the email, with an odd stipulation, “Of course, nothing prevents us from doing what some colleges have done and negotiating with Bon Appetit to see if we can incorporate a set number of guest passes (say 5 or 6) into every meal plan that students can use to treat friends or family members, not students, who may be visiting.” Why would we not be able to use these guest swipes on fellow students? That seems to be counterintuitive to our community principles, which state that “We, the students, staff, and faculty of the Goucher community, support one another even as we recognize our differences.” 

Not allowing us to support one another in such a simple way, telling your friend ‘this one’s on me’, is yet another way Goucher fails to support community building on campus.

By Jimy Kuhn ’27

You might be interested in

A New Queer Horror Novel for the Fall: Compound Fracture

by

Compound Fracture by Andrew Joseph White is one of the most unhinged horror novels that you will ever read. I enjoyed this book thoroughly and deem it as a must-read for this coming fall. 

When a young socialist trans teen comes out to his parents, Miles Abnernathy escapes to a party with stolen photographic evidence that the county’s Sheriff Davies was responsible for the mining “accident” that resulted in injuring his dad and the death of others. Miles is determined to finally fix the blood feud that plagues Twist Creek, West Virginia. 

Photo of Compound Fracture on a table outside in the shade. Image Credit: Merryn Overbeck. 

This blood feud traces back to a hundred years ago when Miles’ great-great-grandfather, Saint Abernathy, started a miners rebellion that was soon ended by a public execution by the hands of law enforcement. Miles becomes the feuds’ latest victim when the sheriff’s son and his friends follow him in the woods and almost beat him to death. 

When Miles wakes up in the hospital, he is met by a ghost who is a soot-covered man who he has never seen before, and Sheriff Davies who is threatening him into silence. Miles refuses and murders one of the boys who hurt him, which leads him to learn about other people in Twist Creek who also want Davies out of his seat. 

Miles is a wonderful protagonist who is going through an intense journey of self-discovery while also fighting for his life. There are so many layers to his character that are explored thoroughly and thoughtfully. Every character in this story has so much depth and is very dynamic.  

Andrew Joseph White writes about cycles of violence and complex family dynamics. He is not afraid to write about politics and the nuances that come with it. This book will have you at the edge of your seat, and there is an even balance of horror and thriller. 

If you have loved his previous works, or are just looking for a good thriller/horror novel for the upcoming fall season, be sure to check out Compound Fracture by Andrew Joseph White.

By Merryn Overbeck, ‘28

Anti-zionism vs. Antisemitism: A Bystander’s Inquiry & Where Goucher Falls

by

* Disclaimer: The Quindecim editorial team has made a rare exemption to allow this writer to publish without their full name, due to fear of academic retaliation and safety concerns, but has verified their status as a student. This piece was published as a student’s op-ed submission. The Quindecim is a space for all students within the Goucher community to express their views and beliefs. These pieces are released in the name of journalistic integrity and not in an attempt to antagonize or reflect the institution of Goucher as a whole.

By A.R.

When I go to class or get together with friends to study, I always seem to hear a comment or joke about the recent Pro-Palestinian actions happening across campus and the resulting discontent from Israel supporters. At first, I thought these comments came from a place of misunderstanding, but as the months progressed, I have come to realize that a majority of the campus–myself included, at one point–do not actually feel the cognitive need to differentiate between history and nuance versus propaganda and semantic wars. 

We all know our campus as “liberal” and left-leaning, but in today’s age of social media and doxxing, no one seems to care to offer an opinion or analysis of what they see and hear. I get it: as a neurodivergent individual, I know that backlash and scrutiny sucks. It’s human nature. Yet, as I have seen the Palestine-Israel war dominate every form of media imaginable and seep into our campus culture, I have realized it’s impossible to avoid learning. Out of genuine interest and a general lack of education (thanks, American public schools), I have spent the last few months reading, watching, and absorbing every resource I could get my hands on before I could conclude an opinion on the topic. 

This is what I have found and have concluded. I implore all of my peers and professors, administrators and alumni, Campus Safety and (the lovely) environmental technicians, or anyone who is/was involved with Goucher College to do the same. Whether you can sense it or not, our world is at an inevitable turning point. If you are human, the happenings of the world do concern you. You can no longer feign ignorance or “lack of free time”–I’m looking at you, student athletes. You make up 51% of our student population and can definitely use your bus rides to away games or daily YouTube-during-lunch time to learn. 

The first glaring area I needed to research was the word “Zionism.” It was (and is) a word that permeates the signs of our student protestors and dots headlines across my Twitter timeline. According to Merriam-Webster, Zionism is “an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.” 

Now, I was raised in a non-denominational Christian household, so the history of Israel and its importance to the Abrahamic religions is not lost on me. However, the overwhelming Evangelical (a Christian denomination) support for Israel seems to be based not on the support for a Jewish nation state, but more on the land’s prophetic significance and corporate interests. It’s no secret that right-wing/conservative politicians (who often identify as Evangelical) have large investments in and contributions from security and defense companies (with the sector being the largest donator in the 2022 election cycle, behind the retired wealthy elite). With billions in profits in the security and defense industry, any type of military conflict that the United States is even tangentially involved in means profits out the wazoo for companies like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, and other defense contractors. And, of course, their stockholders and the politicians they donate to. 

This all seemed quite weird to me–I have my own knowledge and experience of Evangelicals being scummy and self-serving, but this seemed a step beyond that. While trying to dig deeper into the corporate interests in the Middle East/Israel and Palestine, I stumbled across an article written by James Baldwin for The Nation in the late 70s. Titled “Open Letter to the Born Again,” he writes,

The state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests…The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of ‘divide and rule’ and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.

Now, if there is one thing I believe we can agree on, it is that European colonialism served the purpose of 1) corporate interests and profit and 2) (violent) Christian advancement. Despite the West’s belief (or, rather, propaganda) that European colonialism ended before the 20th/21st centuries, the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan was erected following World War I, “giving” the land of Palestine to Britain. As far as I know, “Giving land” is when a family member bequeaths their house and/ or land to their loved one(s) in their will, NOT when you transfer a nation with people and culture and history to the will of one of the most infamous colonial powers. Winston Churchill–the British prime minister that helped establish Jewish immigration into their occupied Palestine and Transjordan–was a known racist, and viewed Palestinian Arabs (and people of color in general) as “inferior,” even stating that the Indigenous Peoples in America and Australia displaced by colonization were being replaced with “a higher grade race.” Like many other European leaders at the time, Churchill believed that the establishment of a Jewish nation state via the Zionism project would remove Jews from the European continent altogether.

Read that last sentence again.

European/Western support of Zionism was not for the freedom and safety of the Jewish people. It was to remove them from the continent. Even after the defeat of the Third Reich. Their support of Zionism was–and is–profoundly anti-semitic.

After this disheartening path of research, I began to realize what Zionism was intended to be. Zionism in its creation was to remove Jews from the existence of White individuals in a manner not as violent and disruptive as the Holocaust. It removes the blame from the White man.

But, of course, like any theory or movement, Zionism has evolved. I do believe it is still inherently rooted in anti-semitism: ⅓ of Holocaust survivors in Israel reportedly live in poverty while nearly 20,000 survivors see none of the bureaucratic aid promised to them (while Israeli government representatives liken themselves to these very same survivors in the media to gain sympathy for their cause). I believe that Zionism as we perceive it today includes Islamophobia, colonialism, and capitalism. Of course, the horrors of October 7th should never happen to any person or peoples; that goes without saying. Yet the Palestinian people have faced countless acts similar to and worse than Oct. 7th every day since. As of February of this year the Palestinian death toll has surpassed 30,000 lives lost since Oct. 7th, not including the bodies that still remain buried under rubble created by Israel’s attacks. Some Israeli citizens routinely mock Palestinians through caricatures of Arab cultures posted across social media. The U.S. and Israel have reportedly been coordinating a possible offshore oil drilling operation on Gaza’s coast. 

A common retort I have seen across comment threads and forums during my research is that Israel is a safe space for Jewish people. Every person with a conscience believes that Jews should feel safe and also deserve to live happy, healthy, and free lives. However, the need for this to be secluded to the single area that is Israel yields the idea that the planet is inherently anti-semitic and unsafe for Jews. If Western nations so adamantly support Zionism as an ideology, are they not admitting that their own countries are inherently anti-semitic and unsafe for Jews to live in?

As the protest over Alumni Weekend occurred, I saw bright pastel posters (that also did not abide by the Demonstration and Poster policies, yet were not taken down like Pro-Palestine materials have), reading “Plz stop being antisemitic w/ ur activism plz.” I would like to contest this claim: after hearing the protesters’ chants from my dorm room and seeing their posters and banners in Sam Rose’s article, none of the activism seemed remotely anti-semitic at all; in fact, there seemed to be no mention of Jews at all. The protestors have stuck to their calls from last semester: they want the administration to recognize what is happening and stop ignoring the student population. While many of my friends and peers are resistant to becoming involved, the general viewpoint seems to be for the freedom of Palestine and for the administration to speak up against Zionism.

Goucher’s student and professor population is not anti-semitic, it is anti-Zionist. We want justice, safety, and liberation for all.

So, my friends and peers: I implore you to read. To watch, to listen, to tune in. It is the least you can do as a human.

You might be interested in

Civil Advocacy at Goucher College

by

By: Natalie Voorhees

*This article is a student submission from COM 142 News and Reporting with Dr. David Zurawik*

It all started when I came across this. 

This is a photo I took of a sign displayed proudly outside the Dorsey Center describing the ways that Goucher students and staff were involved in the fight for the women’s vote in the early 1900s. We are proud, as we should be, of our alumni for being on the right side of history. Among all the recent protests and demonstrations – and the school’s disappointing response to them – seeing this sign made me wonder if it was always a struggle against the administration for students to advocate for their beliefs.

Goucher has been around a long time. The school was founded in 1885 as the Woman’s College of Baltimore, was female-only until 1986, and was officially named Goucher College in 1910, which was also the year that the student newspaper (then called the Goucher Weekly) was established. Any significant event or development that you can think of in the US occurring after the year 1910, Goucher has seen it. 

For example, in February of 2017, a group of Goucher students left campus at 4:30 in the morning, and spent 9 hours in Washington D.C. protesting with the Women’s March. Students at this time were also involved in protests for various other causes in both D.C. and Baltimore, attended local lectures on topics surrounding Black History Month, and spoke out about self expression policies on campus. But one piece from this period that really stuck with me was from March 31, 2017, entitled “The Psychology of Climate Change” which dissects the bizarre tendency people have to ignore the science of climate change despite its legitimacy. Not only was this piece expertly written and researched, but it also forces the reader to confront their own behaviors and environmental consciousness, as well as raising important questions for how faculty and students of a college like Goucher can actively be a part of a global solution. 

But we can also look back a bit further. During the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s, Goucher College students were involved in all kinds of forms of civil protests and demonstrations, including but not limited to: marching in Baltimore, attending peace conferences, hosting speakers on the subject, writing opinion pieces, and general advocacy in the public forum. But my favorite piece that I read from this time was from May 8th, 1964 called “Commitments to the Civil Rights Movement in Quiet Deeds Besides Demonstrations,” which described the NSM Project. The NSM (Northern Student Movement) had members from many colleges who were involved in the fight for equality, and typically did so, as with many other movements, through large scale actions and demonstrations. 

However, one of its less obvious undertakings was a tutoring service for black students in Baltimore where students from Johns Hopkins University and Goucher College would tutor kids in various subjects. The tutors would also provide textbooks for the children that didn’t have any, and frequently paid for them out of their own pocket. In addition, there was a similar service for New York students called the Harlem Project that Goucher students also volunteered for. The article also detailed how a couple years prior to its publication (about 1961) one of the first few black women was admitted to the school. Her classmates had her back by contributing to the desegregation of Towson eating places. A sociology student polled local residents to see if they would still frequent their favorite eateries if they were desegregated. The results were an overwhelming 98% affirmative, and this proved to be the most effective in helping their cause. 

To all readers, I hope that knowing that students of this institution in the past were so outspoken, compassionate, and forward thinking brings you the same comfort it does me. If you want to see more, I highly recommend looking at the archives of the student newspaper. Self expression is absolutely essential to democracy as well as to progressivism on any college campus, which is very evident from our school’s long history of activism. 

To consider all this, and the positive societal change it brought on, it is astounding that posters now need a stamp of approval to be hung, or that limitations on demonstrations would only be increased in response to student activism. Fervent protest and advocacy for the reform of our system may seem dangerous to some minds, but it is infinitely more dangerous if young people don’t have strong opinions on the world we’re going to inherit. So to all who are protesting genocide, climate change, or any other cause you feel strongly about, I implore you – as any of our alumni would – to never stop. 

You might be interested in

Rumor Has It: The Anonymous Student Forums Shaping Campus Culture

by

On February 2nd, 2024, the Instagram account @gopherconfessions posted an image with a caption that began, “Hey Whores and Whorettes GopherGirl here. Click the link in our bio to submit the finest Gopher Gossip. All Submissions will be kept anonymous. Don’t follow this account if you’re going to get offended easily.” The accompanying image featured two characters from the television show Gossip Girl with their faces obscured by the head of Rowdy, the Goucher mascot. This account would quickly amass over one hundred followers after less than two days of activity, and as of the end of March, this number has tripled. 

These numbers are not insignificant. Goucher’s current enrollment, as listed on the official website, is 1,100 students. This means about a quarter of the student body follows this account–going through the follower list, the vast majority of the followers are current students, not Goucher graduates or curious outside viewers.

“GopherGirl” would go on to prompt its followers to answer the various polls posted on its stories, ones that asked students such opinions as “Which Men Are Worse?” and then providing choices between the men’s sports teams at Goucher. A handful of polls ask who among the students have “hunter eyes” or “doe eyes,” terms that have gained prominence through platforms like TikTok and the beauty and ‘Looksmaxing’ communities. Another one asks “Favorite and Least Favorite Goucher Athletes?” “Who’s relationship would (you) change if (you) could?” They clarified this in a parenthetical, “Aka who would (you) make single.” 


Source: @gopherconfessions Instagram

The account also invited followers to submit names for a poll titled “Smash or Pass?” where the names of students, anonymously submitted by their peers, would have their desirability open to public debate via a ratio of votes. The question of “Smash or Pass” as it is phrased on the poll has been around for years, its earliest instance being recorded through Urban Dictionary in 2010.

Via: @gopherconfessions Instagram


The @gopherconfessions page maintains that all of the submissions made through the Google Form in its bio are completely anonymous, with a screenshot in their profile’s highlights backing up the claim that they cannot see any information on the people who submit. This privacy ensures that students can unburden themselves from even the most complicated or personal secrets without repercussions or prying eyes–as the owner or owners of the account are allegedly still Goucher undergraduates themselves. 

Adjacent to the Instagram page is the app YikYak, an app established in 2013 for college students to communicate anonymously in their local area. Once a student has connected with their school or created an account, they’re able to see a wide range of posts from anyone around their institution. Opening the app, you can see one post from an anonymous Goucher student reading, “Anyone applying to grad school? I need the moral support,” and another one a few posts down that says, “Sun’s out, can’t wait to see my Van Meter crushes looking good”  or “Just overheard someone saying they might be pregnant at the dining hall.” 

One significant difference between YikYak and the Instagram pages run by students is that YikYak discourages using people’s real names and identities when posting. However, the comments under one recent YikYak post that asks “Hottest athlete at Goucher, go” suggests that this rule is not carefully enforced. YikYak in the Towson area also saw a sharp uptick in posts surrounding the devastation and death in Gaza around the fall semester, with many users positioning themselves as anonymous student activists. YikYak has a few recurring categories of posts: Relatable quips about campus life, callouts towards the student body that range from the political to the mundane (i.e. asking people to flush the toilets) gossip, and students who use YikYak as their own personal social media (stream-of-consciousness type humor).

Despite the risks of such forums, there is also a clear desire for students to communicate in such a way. With some digging, a “Goucher Confessions” Facebook page from thirteen years ago was uncovered. 

A WordPress article by “The Blunt Bystander” from 2013 covering the page wrote about the “rise and fall” of Goucher Confessions, chronicling students’ paltry confessions about sex, queer issues, and oftentimes serious criticism of Goucher as an institution. The first YouTube video featured in the article asks students if they know of Goucher Confessions, and students respond with their thoughts and interpretations of the page. The interviewees praise the anonymity of the forum, as well as the “weird” responses it garners. A student in the beginning of the second part of the Goucher Confessions video series says they enjoy “the more controversial stuff about race.” 

Source: The Blunt Bystander

Another student in the same part disagrees, saying conversations about race and gender are how you start “conflict and trouble.” This must have been true in some regard because, as pictured, Goucher Confessions’ last post had them realizing through one of their communications classes that their page was not having a positive impact. Because of this, Goucher Confessions went dormant, and only exists in the article and its linked YouTube videos by the creator.



Source: The Blunt Bystander


Even in 2013, when social media was not quite as ubiquitous as it is now, there was still a niche to be filled when it came to students expressing their most controversial opinions, gripes, and crushes. Students at Goucher want an outlet to express these feelings, and it goes without saying that gossip is inescapable on a college campus, especially one so small and tight-knit.

An anonymous Goucher student who did not wish to be named due to privacy concerns had the following to say about platforms such as YikYak and gossip pages: “There are some people at Goucher who feel the school’s too small, and they want some drama.” “I think everyone has an interest in gossip, but there are ways you can gossip without it being as toxic and harmful as it is.” They deemed the anonymous online posting to be “high school behavior, honestly, it’s very childish,” condemning this type of conduct in a college setting. “We’re all human, we’re all going to participate in gossip at one time or another, but there’s a line.” 

Where there exists a space to cause problems, some people instead choose to use this space to uplift. “GopherGirl” has made an effort to remove itself from a constant stream of negativity, as well. Not only has it run polls that encourage students to provide encouraging words or name “icons” on campus, but many students refuse to give genuinely vitriolic answers to the questions that may begin faceless feuds, such as ones where the account asks who its followers hate. A common sentiment from the replies was that they don’t hate anyone, or that they receive nothing but kindness from their peers. One question on their story asked, “Let’s get some compliments going folks.” As a student body, when given anonymity, Gophers often trend towards positivity–as an example, the thoughtful messages left for dining hall staff on the feedback cards. With the somewhat conflicting tone of the account, the moderators of “GopherGirl’s” account was contacted in order to understand their intentions behind making the account. In response, they gave the following response:

“The GopherConfessions platform aims to encourage individuals to embrace opportunities and live purposefully, while also fostering self-awareness and guiding personal growth. Through insightful reflections on identity and perception, the platform seeks to empower individuals to navigate their paths with confidence and clarity. We recognize that our platform may evoke mixed reactions, including criticism and resentment. However, we aspire to prompt introspection by encouraging individuals to reflect on their own behavior and interactions. Through this lens, we hope to shed light on the prevalence of gossip and negativity in daily life, fostering a culture of self-awareness and empathy within our community. While our school environment may be characterized by gossip, our intention is to channel these dynamics into constructive dialogue and personal growth opportunities.” 


Whether it was fear of backlash, security of the account, or added exclusivity, the Instagram page has since gone private. GopherGirl recently created a post saying that there has been a lack of submitted confessions, explaining their dormancy. 

You might be interested in

1 2 3 4 5 … 14
Go to Top