The opinions presented below are solely the views of the author and do not represent the views of The News-Letter. If you are a member of the Hopkins community looking to submit a piece or a letter to the editor, please email opinions@jhunewsletter.com.
On Sept. 8, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the enforcement of an appeals court ruling against ICE's ability to use frivolous discriminatory factors as a reason for stopping individuals and checking their immigration status. This decision comes as a significant departure from the so-called ‘race blindness’ the Supreme Court has tried to pursue in college admissions.
In the race to build the biggest and baddest AI data centers, everyday Americans are being left behind. Predominantly Black and low-income communities have taken the biggest hit, especially in cities like Memphis, where the xAI Memphis Supercluster went online just last year. Now Maryland residents are facing a similar battle.
Reading “University students respond to the assassination of Charlie Kirk,” I was impressed by the way the paper addressed it: How do we protest the violent suppression of opinions while acknowledging the damage a person’s platform may inflict? As a student paper publishing an article on a political assassination is no small matter.
We need new policies, new leaders, new systems. In short: we need change. Yet, as much as we can discuss our concerns and complaints about the world, most of us are not as inclined to jump in to be a part of the change — and not because of the work needed to try.
Dining halls are a problem. Workers are understaffed and overworked, and students and staff have recently commented on the poor quality of food and reduced portion sizes. Dining is a crucial component of student life and well-being, and Hopkins staff are critical to its success. The administration, however, has neglected to provide an adequate working environment for its dining employees.
When I first applied, I didn’t really know either. On the list of positions at The News-Letter, “Public Editor” caught my eye because there were only a few people that had signed up. The other roles were obvious enough: the Voices Editor handled Voices, the Opinions Editor oversaw Opinions, the News Editor managed News. By that logic, I figured, the Public Editor must be in charge of the “public.”
This fall, The News-Letter conducted a community survey to better understand who makes up our readership. In total, 43 students shared their identities, academic backgrounds and experiences.
On Jan. 16, the PIIAC rejected a proposal from the Hopkins Justice Collective to divest from weapons and surveillance companies implicated in atrocities in Gaza. The decision came during one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history, as over 90% of over 2 million Palestinians faced bombardment, starvation and displacement.
The restriction of generative AI in classrooms is appropriate to maintain academic integrity and intellectual honesty and should remain in place even as technology intertwines further with day-to-day life. However, artificial intelligence as a supplement to learning is inevitable yet detrimental to the learning mind.
AI is efficient, but journalism, as time-sensitive as it may be, requires more than just efficiency. When tackling sensitive topics, nuanced interviews and care for our subject matter are required to produce a sincere publication. The News-Letter will not sacrifice ethical reporting for efficiency, no matter how alluring the prospect may be.
Not a month passes in which I don’t wish Hopkins offered a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry.
The News-Letter functions not only as a record of campus activities, a place to play Hopkins-themed crosswords or share a nervous breakdown experience from finals week; it is also one of the few avenues through which Hopkins speaks to and about its community. Asking what makes a good newspaper inevitably raises larger questions about what makes for a thriving public conversation.
The sophomore housing selection process operates as a lottery. You cross your fingers for a good time slot to log into the portal first and claim your preferred residence hall. My top pick was a single room in a double suite in Scott-Bates Commons — where I am currently writing this article.
How many of us have felt overwhelmed by undergraduate and graduate school today? I think we all have experienced the stress of being students. Universities have become a stressful atmosphere where students struggle to maintain their well-being while completing multiple tasks.
April 29 marked a year since the beginning of the Palestine Solidarity Encampment at Hopkins. The aim of the encampment was to spotlight the ongoing genocide in Gaza and demand that the University divest from and boycott companies and universities supporting genocide.
French economist Frédéric Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy" mocks the economic logic (or lack thereof) behind President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff policies. The theory behind Trump’s unprecedented tariffs across the board on all industries from certain countries is that they will increase manufacturing job numbers. As a whole, however, tariffs ultimately hurt American consumers.
Hopkins has long had an issue with student life. Some on forums like Reddit have said, “Why does it feel like everyone hates it here at Hopkins?” while others have noticed the complain culture present at the school. Hopkins is one of the most academically prestigious schools in the country, but it often lags behind its peers in student life.
Hopkins researchers are facing critical cuts to their funding, impeding life-saving work. International students are getting their F-1 visas revoked “without reason or warning.” The U.S. government is handing out increasingly unreasonable demands to universities that target the core academic mission of higher education.
How will Hopkins respond to the Trump administration’s assaults on our country’s laws, Constitution, and universities? So far, our administration has largely avoided the question. The time for silence, however, has run out.
My dad grew up in communist Cuba under Fidel Castro. During the Cuban Revolution, the people thought Castro would bring about positive change for society, but the opposite quickly became true. I notice parallels between Cubans choosing Castro and Americans choosing a demagogue who has instead enacted an authoritarian takeover of institutions.
