No matter what it sounds like, this isn't the beginning of a movie where the "cool," "hip" English teacher breaks through to the kids by sitting backward in a chair and rapping Shakespeare. But the truth is closer than I'd like: This semester, I was an Ignite Fellow with Teach for America.

My LinkedIn says I rehearsed lesson plans to reach underperforming second graders in underserved schools while practicing culturally aware pedagogical methods. It says I intervened in high school dropout and incarceration rates by providing engaging tutoring sessions four days per week tailored to students' individual levels and interests. As if it forgot, it adds that I adapted during lessons when students required different approaches. Oh, and most crucially, it states that I ensured students' learning outcomes were accomplished.

These things are true, but they're clunkily translated from human to LinkedInese. They miss the point entirely, like a stray frisbee gone into the neighbor's yard.

What I really did was gently handle tears when I informed my student that stone is spelled with a tricky silent e, not like ston. I became a proud expert in negotiations, or perhaps a shameful master of appeasements ("okay, we can play tic-tac-toe while reading irregular words on your turn - no, not regular tic-tac-toe - but only if you finish reading the story").

I felt my heart deflate like a kiddy pool at summer's end when, one random Wednesday in Brody Learning Commons, I teared up as I said goodbye to my students and realized that I would never see them again.

When we began back in winter, they proclaimed they hated reading and preferred math instead. I asked them to identify the differences between words like spat, spit and spot, and they asked me to quiz them on addition facts. I told them I didn't know anything about math, just reading, so that was all I could teach them - they giggled when I pretended to not even know two plus two.

Things seemed to happen slowly, then all at once - like the luxury apartments built in my hometown, or like ancient empires falling. My students cleared their learning goals for the semester in the first few weeks. When I would work with one student, the other would practice writing words on their whiteboard instead of trying to quiz me on math and get me to reveal that I'm not earnestly innumerate. My days alternated from reading Ancient Greek plays and famous poems and short stories to chicken-scratched notes like "rileystrait is dbesd," which I was able to decipher as "Riley Strait is the best."

"Wait, what does 'Riley Strait' mean?" asked the student who wrote the note. I told her it was my name. "Can I call you Mr. Riley?" I told her yes, she could. With the palm of her hand, she smudged out Strait and appended Mr. to front: "Mr. Riley is dbesd"

Just once, I let dbesd mean the best and didn't correct her. From then on, they called me Mr. Riley.

Suddenly, the luxury apartments were built; suddenly, the ancient empires crumbled. Suddenly, it was one random Wednesday in Brody Learning Commons, and I had merrily relented to their requests for just one more game of tic-tac-toe over and over, and we were five minutes past when our final lesson was supposed to end.

Through my computer, I heard their teacher rhythmically clapping to elicit their attention. It was time to go.

My laptop read three full bars of Wi-Fi, but I myself turned into a laggy Zoom call of hurried sentiments and goodbyes: regular, then frozen, then words rushing out all at once.

The last thing I said - after how proud I was, how much fun we had all semester, how great I knew they would do in third grade, et cetera - was something like: I want you to remember that, just because I won't see you guys next year, that doesn't mean you can't still read all the tough words we learned this year.

What I meant was: Just because you do it alone does not mean you cannot do difficult things.

My student who once wrote "Mr. Riley is dbesd" started looking sad and tilted her camera down to cover her eyes, and her bottom lip frowned such that it covered her top lip like blankets pulled over one's head to deny the morning sun.

Her last words to me were, "Okay, that's enough," and then she logged off.

I remembered the first time I messaged my students' teacher to report that they were doing a good job. That day, the teacher had them stand in front of the class and read my message aloud to reward them for their good behavior. My student told me about it the next morning, and I remember her saying, "I felt so proud of myself."

Through eyes beginning to burn, wet and red like roses after rain, I typed a message to their teacher:

SUPER SUPER SHOUTOUT to G_____ and T_______! I am so indescribably proud of both of them for the work they've put in this semester. everyday, they showed up to persevere and were their own biggest advocates - it's been so special to watch their confidence and enthusiasm for reading grow throughout our time together, not to mention their own confidence. I know they will do amazing things, and I want them to know to always believe in themselves and never forget what they're capable of ?

I was told it's time to start saying my goodbyes in Baltimore.

Every ounce of me is pleading not to.

As commencement approaches in less than a month, there is a feeling of heaviness that aches through every bone in my body. It's a feeling that doesn't announce itself loudly. I feel it as I walk through campus, looking at the buildings that occupied my time and hold memories of utter desperation and quiet triumph (thinking about you always, my Gatehouse). I feel it as I look into my friends' eyes, holding their hands, grasping for the texture of conversations I hope will stretch beyond my time here. I feel it as I step out of my house every morning and wave to the neighbors who've made this place my home.

It's knowing that, soon, I'll be somewhere else, that these people, this city, this version of me will shift into memory.

I came to Hopkins starry-eyed and filled with hopes and dreams of what I'd make out of my four years at this institution. I thought about the classes I'd take, the people I'd meet, the person I'd become.

What I didn't expect was how much Baltimore itself would shape me. Not just the campus, but the city. The people who waved back when I smiled on the street. The conversations I had in clinic waiting rooms, on late-night bus rides, in corner stores and coffee shops. The parts of the city that broke my heart and the parts that slowly stitched it back together. This wasn't just a place I passed through. It became something I belonged to and something that belonged to me.

There is no better way to say it other than I'm sad. I'm so sad to be graduating, and I'm so sad to be leaving.

Yes, I am excited for the next steps of my life - to explore new places, to meet new people, to keep becoming. But that excitement doesn't erase the ache, and it surely doesn't make the leaving easier.

Because how do you say goodbye to the place where you found yourself? The place where you learned to stay soft in the face of hardness, where you felt your world expand and contract all at once. The place where you met people who changed your life: not always loudly, but deeply.

Lately, I find myself taking the long way home. I walk past the row homes with wind chimes and disco balls, the neighbors who always have their cat perched on the windowsill. I listen to the same playlist I made sophomore year at maximum volume, as if the sounds that once comforted me might drown out the self-doubt and existential crisis that have crept in.

My body is trying to time travel.

Some nights, I take photos of things I've passed a hundred times before. As I sit with my roommates, I feel an overwhelming urge to stick my camera in their faces and take hundreds of photos that clutter my camera roll. I don't know what I'll do with the pictures. I just want proof.

I think that's what grief is, sometimes: the gathering of proof that something mattered.

I want to remember the sunny afternoons spent stretched out on the beach or a quad with nowhere to be. I want to remember the warmth I felt after good conversations with professors that left me thinking long after class ended. I want to remember the excitement of planning events with friends, filling group chats with way too many messages, watching ideas come to life.

I want to remember the sound of the front door slamming shut too hard. I want to remember the surge of joy I felt when I heard my roommates screaming, gathered in the kitchen. I want to remember the feeling of coming back from the library with frozen fingers and a fried brain, but comforted knowing someone left the living room light on for me. I want to remember how my friends and I debriefed every moment of our days like they were full-length novels, how, sometimes, we'd knock on each other's doors just to sit in silence, how we were always within reach.

I'm scared of forgetting what these four years have felt like. Not the milestones or the big things, but the ordinary. I want to never forget the quiet rituals and the soft ways we held each other. I'm scared that, five years from now, these moments will blur and I'll only remember that they were good, not how they were good.

I don't have a clean ending. I only have this: a heart that is both full and breaking.

And still, beneath my grief, there's happiness. There will always be a steady joy that I got to be in this city at all. That I got to love people so deeply and laugh until I couldn't breathe. I am so grateful to be able to walk through the city that has cracked me open and made space for me to heal. I got to learn, not just in classrooms, but in kitchens and sidewalks and waiting rooms. I got to become someone I'm proud of.

So, here it is, my last piece for my column. What a gift it's been to belong here, even for a little while.

Thank you for reading and for letting me write my way through these beautiful four years.

Aashi Mendpara is a senior from Orlando, Fla. majoring in Neuroscience and Medicine, Science and the Humanities. Her column shares reflections on her childhood, growing relationships, getting older and navigating life's changes.

A myriad of other factors contribute to poor student life, such as Division III athletics and poor campus food, but, more than anything, Charles Village and St. Paul Street specifically have not been designed in a way to accommodate a vibrant campus atmosphere. Given that the University has played a major role in the development of the majority of retail space and buildings on St. Paul Street, I believe the administration should take it upon themselves to ask students what vendors they would like along the street and implement the desired changes.

Accessibility to good food and interesting shops can be an important part of student life. While The Rotunda and Hampden are around the University and have many unique vendors and cuisines, they are simply not as accessible as St. Paul Street. Right when you walk out of class, if you want food, your options are limited to six different restaurants serving noodles, Chipotle, Potbelly, &pizza and Indian food. I don't see many people frequenting many of the establishments on campus, such as the new Lao Sze Chuan. While I'm sure the food is good, the cuisine is just too similar to many other restaurants along St. Paul Street.

Princeton University's analogous street is Palmer Square. It features vendors from luxury boutiques such as Hermes to toy stores and bakeries. You can find Mediterranean cuisine, Chinese food, charcuterie boards and more. While Hopkins should not find a way to get a Hermes along St. Paul Street, Hopkins should learn from Palmer Square and try to incorporate a more diverse palette of vendors to improve student life.

Sometimes, dining hall food gets old or, sometimes, you just want to go look around a store selling clothes or trinkets. At Hopkins, the food on St. Paul Street gets old and tired quickly into your freshman year, and getting anywhere beyond St. Paul Street requires much more than a quick walk. The existence of a Chase Bank or bike vendor for a relatively small campus is clearly not a proactive way to improve student life. Given the proximity to the University and the sheer number of students living in Charles Village, I believe that St. Paul Street is a student's street and its opportunity should reflect that.

$250 million was well spent to construct a new student center, but student life concerns go beyond that. Eventually, the student center, with three new dining options and a few recreational rooms, will get old, and students will look to places on St. Paul Street once again for recreation. There's only one bar, Charles Village Pub and very limited offered cuisines.

From talking to other students and friends, the only vendors on St. Paul Street that most of the student body seems to like are University Market and Deli, Chipotle, Kajiken, THB Bagelry and Deli, CVS Pharmacy and Charles Village Pub. Even the grocery store, Streets Market, is simply too expensive for students to do their weekly grocery shopping, and CVS, despite being primarily a pharmacy, often supplements many of those needs.

Although I believe St. Paul Street needs a makeover, I don't believe in kicking out established small businesses like Lao Sze Chuan or Orient Express. However, there are some spaces on St. Paul Street that are unoccupied - the worst possibility for student life improvements.

I believe establishments like Trader Joe's, Taco Bell or even thrift stores like Buffalo Exchange would be well received by the student body. The University should take a poll from students before they rent these spaces to vendors. Additionally, Hopkins should look at how they can expand access to small business, grocery stores and other daily life vendors near N. Charles Street. While this won't fix the problem of student life, it will make University life for young adults more enjoyable.

Neil Mahto is a sophomore from Albuquerque, N.M. He is the Opinions Editor of The News-Letter.

The debate featured speakers from the College Republicans at JHU and Hopkins Democrats. Sponsors included the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute and the Heterodox Academy at Johns Hopkins University.

In contrast to the first debate, this event featured a reimagined format aimed at fostering deeper engagement with the material. Previously, the format prevented students from making a rebuttal statement -the Political Union changed this in order to cultivate a "more dynamic, engaging, and intellectually rigorous debate."

Moderating the debate was George Oppel, a member of the Heterodox Academy at Hopkins and professor in the University Writing Program. He opened the event by emphasizing the values of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement.

"I preach this gospel all the time," Oppel said. "Disagreement is welcome because it makes everybody smarter. We don't go into this in an attitude of trying to destroy our opponents. We go into it in an attitude of trying to learn, while also maintaining our own position."

The event also allowed students the opportunity to step outside usual academic realms and engage with peers who hold different beliefs.

In an interview with The News-Letter, Kelsey Miller, a sophomore double majoring in public health studies and environmental science, treasurer of the Political Union, and president of Hopkins Democrats, reflected on the importance of cross-disciplinary dialogue.

"We definitely want to change the stereotype that we're just STEM students who stay in our dorms and talk to each other over Sidechat," she said. "So we wanted to find a way to break out of that echo chamber and to really touch people who are different from us."

In the first 30 minutes, individuals debated the contention: Should health care be left to the free market?

Proponents of a free-market approach argued that competition incentivizes innovation, efficiency and personal freedom. They highlighted the United States' high cancer survival rates and pharmaceutical advancements as outcomes of a market-driven system. Government intervention, they claimed, inflates costs and impedes access. They advocated for local charity care, increased price transparency and decentralized competition.

Some students also added moral convictions underpinning their positions. Miller, arguing in opposition to health care being left to the free market and drawing on her background in public health, emphasized the ethical dimension of the debate in her interview with The News-Letter.

"I believe health care is a human right," she said. "I believe nobody should be put into debt because they get a cancer diagnosis or they are unable to afford health care. I believe the best way to do that is through the single-payer system, and other countries have done this."

Opponents countered by highlighting the estimated 26 million uninsured Americans and a system that prioritizes profit over well-being. They called for universal health care as a moral and practical necessity, emphasizing the government's role in ensuring equitable access to it. The debate underscored tensions between individual liberty and collective responsibility, with both sides acknowledging the need for continued dialogue and community-based solutions.

The second half of the event was spent debating the question: Is abortion health care?

Supporters of abortion as health care cited positions from leading medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization, both of which classify abortion as essential reproductive care. Debaters shared the story of a Texan woman who died after being denied a medically necessary abortion to highlight the dangers of restrictive laws. They noted that maternal mortality is seven percent higher in states with strict abortion bans and criticized the failure of such states to provide adequate postnatal support. Their argument emphasized the need for comprehensive reproductive care.

Opponents approached the question from a moral and philosophical lens, questioning whether abortion can be considered health care if it ends a human life. They argued that human life begins at conception and should be protected at every stage. They also referenced the mental health consequences of abortion, including increased anxiety and depression among women, and advocated for a broader ethic of life that includes both mother and child.

Students also reflected on the rhetorical and philosophical tensions within the abortion debate. Natalie Bernstein, a psychology and political science major who identifies as pro-choice, highlighted the contrasting value systems between both sides in an interview with The News-Letter.

"I think people in the pro-choice position, which I consider myself to hold, could care a lot about practical considerations and a lot about human well-being in a more holistic sense, whereas I think people on the pro-life side are more focused on a religious or moral foundational view," she said.

She also questioned the strategic use of language in public discourse.

"I think a lot of the rhetoric that people use around abortion - like the question 'Is abortion health care?' - I don't know how helpful it is," she said. "I'm not sure that people who are pro-life necessarily care about whether it's health care. I think they care more about the idea of life as a fundamental religious, moral, philosophical position. I think the kind of rhetoric around health care is really useful for mobilizing populations that are less religious."

Founder of the Political Union and President of College Republicans at JHU Aneesh Swaminathan had a different take on the issue, which he described in an email to The News-Letter.

"I am a biology and political science major, and I wish to change the way we discuss deep and profound issues, like medical ethics or morality, in our political parlance," he wrote. "Too often our debates on these topics are superficial and reductionist ... and too often we delude ourselves into thinking 'oh, we just disagree on what life is,' when it's really about, 'how do we respect life.' They don't get to the roots of our actual philosophical disagreements and, so, we never really get to advance our debate beyond the usual refrains. I want to change that."

Swaminathan highlighted why engaging college students in these discussions is so important.

"There is no better demographic, in my mind, to discuss these issues than college students," he wrote. "Not only are they voters, they are also the largest stakeholders ... they will be the ones shaping the conversation on these issues in the future."

In the last update, it was reported that the vehicle that struck the side of the shuttle was a white SUV. As such, the JHMI bus damaged an office building and a part of Yum's Asian Bistro. While the tow trucks were able to remove the shuttle later that day, vehicles were still rerouted from the area for the rest of the evening.

In an email to The News-Letter, the University spokesperson confirmed that the accident occurred at 5:20 p.m. on Saturday, April 19 at the intersection of Charles Street and 25th Street. According to the University statement, the driver who struck the JHMI bus "ran [a] red light," placing fault on them rather than the driver of the shuttle.

However, according to the police report that was received from Baltimore Police Department, the accident occurred at 5:19 p.m. and involved multiple vehicles after a car traveling westbound on 25th Street struck the JHMI shuttle bus, which was traveling northbound on Charles Street.

The report indicated that the striking vehicle, identified as V1 (the white SUV), lost control after colliding with the shuttle, leading to a chain-reaction crash involving three additional parked vehicles (V3, V4 and V5) before slamming into the corner building at 2501 N. Charles Street, causing severe structural damage. The construction building inspector later declared the structure condemned, determining it to be unsafe and unfit for habitation, so the occupants were evacuated.

The University spokesperson stated that the JHMI bus was carrying 22 passengers and one driver at the time of the accident. Of those, seven passengers and the driver were transported to hospitals with non-life-threatening injuries. The driver of the striking vehicle was also transported to Hopkins Hospital. Various emergency medical teams responded to the scene to ensure that injured parties received prompt medical attention.

In the University's statement, the spokesperson addressed Hopkins's perspective of the crash, outlining the steps that the University has taken to support affected students and staff.

"We have a dedicated team of case managers that work one-on-one with students to answer questions, connect them with resources, and ensure they have the support to navigate their needs," they wrote. "All impacted students will continue to receive outreach and follow-up support in the coming months and, if needed, throughout their time at the university."

Editors' Note: This article has been updated to link the police report.

I think we take the sun for granted. I mean, yes, we would most certainly be dead without it, and then, well, I wouldn't even be writing this, but there is a certain warmth, separate from physical, that we receive from the sun. It is always there, always rising from the east to the west.

There is an exchange that occurs in Lady Bird where Sister Sarah Joan and Lady Bird discuss the content of her college application essay:

"You clearly love Sacramento."

"I do?"

"You write about Sacramento so affectionately and with such care."

"I was just describing it."

"Well, it comes across as love."

"Sure, I guess I pay attention."

"Don't you think maybe they are the same thing? Love and attention?"

I grew up in southern California on the cusp of the County of Los Angeles (so, quite a distance from Sacramento; I also did not go to Catholic school like Lady Bird, but you get the point), where the sun's canary glow is as sure as the next breath, and the sky weeps when the sun is nowhere to be seen, like a lover grieving their other half. Where the fickle breeze is a romantic respite, combing through your hair on a rice-cake-sticky afternoon. What a contrast to the weather I experience on the East Coast, where - nine times out of 10 - it feels like a perpetual state of doctor's-office air conditioning. And there's that stubborn, sharp wind that I cannot avoid getting smacked in the face with, despite my best efforts.

Sure, the East Coast is not without its own charms. Real white Christmases with actual visible snowflakes falling from the sky, so picturesque and sparkly I almost expect Frank Sinatra or George Michael to start singing from the heavens. Lots of trees, very green and tall. A really good public transportation system that I sometimes romanticize to compensate for the lack of a car. A lot of uninterrupted fields and flat land (which is actually quite a pretty sight, contrary to popular belief - very calming, very Jane Austen, very peaceful). A lot of other things that I am sure exist and are lovely can be found at some point living in this easternmost place, things which, I confess, I cannot articulate nearly as easily as my thoughts about the opposite shore. Who can blame me, when I have only lived here for a total of 18 months out of my almost 20 years of life?

So, you must understand; oh, how I love California. I have always loved California, but I have noticed I love it even more when I am away from it. I love wearing shorts and the softest T-shirt I own on a rare humid day here on the East Coast. I love how the sun looks when it begins to set just over the skyline, when its many lifelines stream over the rooftops in strips of sienna. I love the sunset orange that feels like a gift on brisk January days, a shade among a delectable palette of honey tones mixed with memories of childhood. I have most certainly paid attention to my home state for the more than 19 years of my life, maybe even most intensely during the past two. And it is now so unbelievably easy for me to say: I love everything about it.

It is an extremely difficult thing to admit to an emotion as strong and built-up as love. It takes eons to even notice it out of the corner of your eye, even longer to realize that it has suddenly chosen to sit cross-legged, playing patty-cake - thump-thump, thump-thump, faster still - with the walls of your beating heart. And once you have locked eyes with it, held hands with it, it is the only thing you can think of. You think of it when it's there, even more when it's not. You hear it in your favorite songs that remind you of salt-soaked hair; you see it in the greasy fingerprints on old sunglasses; you can nearly taste its scent of gasoline and desert-hot asphalt - together, oddly sweet.

So, perhaps I am biased. I will concede this possibility. Even though my dream is to live somewhere far and experience all shades of life, I will always belong to the Golden Coast. Do not be mistaken: The East Coast has its own signature moves, without a doubt. And yet, I will always, always favor California. I will always love the free flow of downtown Los Angeles; the bright tides of Santa Monica; the plain passion in Hollywood; the hand-painted cliffs of Laguna; the crinkled roads of San Diego; anywhere, anywhere on that square of the map.

I could be anywhere in the world, but, wherever it is, I will be reminded of my home back on the West Coast. And perhaps that is what loving something is: to see it everywhere, feel it everywhere. Even in places you've just begun to know yet are the happiest you've ever been to, you still feel the undying warmth of the sun.

Ayden Min is a sophomore majoring in International Studies from Los Angeles, Calif. She is a Copy Editor for The News-Letter.

The News-Letter: Could you briefly describe your main research project or research interests?

Enoch Toh: My research is about developing data-driven platforms to guide the design of precision medicines. I'm interested in bridging experimental and computational methods to accelerate the development of genetic cell therapies and to use these platforms to extract insights that can guide the design of next-generation medicines.

N-L: What drew you to this particular field?

ET: I've always been interested in the programmability of biology. In high school, I took a synthetic biology class where we engineered Escherichia coli to remove its pungent odor. That really excited me - how we can engineer and precisely control biological systems. In recent years, cell therapies have become a very promising avenue in medicine, but at the same time, these therapies have become increasingly complex to engineer. So, I think there's this exciting opportunity to leverage computational methods to help improve, accelerate and optimize these systems to be more effective. This convergence of experimental and computational work is where my interests lie.

N-L: When you talk about precision medicines, do you focus on one specific disease or a category?

ET: My main research project is about lipid nanoparticles. Lipid nanoparticles have a lot of applications, from mRNA vaccines, gene editing, cancer immunotherapy and treatment for genetic disorders, but they also require precise optimization. That optimization is what I'm working on: how machine learning and AI-guided systems can develop more efficient and targeted lipid nanoparticles.

N-L: Could you talk about the kind of skills you used or learned?

ET: In the lab, I work mostly on developing high-throughput screening assays, which involves formulating a large library of lipid nanoparticles and testing their performance in cell assays. In terms of computational methods, I worked on developing machine-learning models that could predict the performance of lipid nanoparticles based on their compositions and then used those models to guide optimization. I think of it as a design-build-test kind of work - you do experiments, and you get some data. You use that data to train machine-learning models. The machine-learning model can then tell you what experiment to do next. So it's like a feedback loop, an iterative optimization loop that gradually improves the performance of your nanoparticles.

N-L: How has Hopkins supported your research exploration and independence?

ET: Hopkins has been a really transformative experience for me. I think it has a strong focus on undergraduate research. When I first arrived on campus and I was reaching out for labs to join, I found that there were a lot of resources on how to reach out to professors. There was this platform, ForagerOne, that listed professors and their interests. I emailed a lot [of professors], and my current PI, Dr. Mao, responded. Thanks to that support, I started research in the beginning of my freshman year.

Hopkins also has a lot of funding opportunities to support research endeavors. After freshman year, I applied for the Summer Provost's Undergraduate Research Award that gives you funding to do independent research over the summer. Hopkins also had some undergraduate conference funds that can support your travel to different conferences.

N-L: You're a CS and Molecular and Cellular Biology double major - how do you integrate what you learn in class with your research?

ET: There's some overlap between class and research. In my CS classes and my biology classes, I'm learning foundational knowledge - cell biology, biochemistry... I think those classes gave me a good foundation to build on. But my lab is more of an engineered, applied lab, so in the lab, I'm taking the knowledge from my classes and trying to apply it to solving problems.

N-L: Were there any challenges that you faced during your research? And how did you overcome them?

ET: I think the research process is a not a linear journey. For me, there were a lot of ups and downs - there were periods where I had very little progress, or very few results. In those periods, it was somewhat challenging and demoralizing. But my PI told me that in these moments, you have to persevere and put in extra effort to stay motivated. He compared the research journey to farming - you spend a long time nurturing and growing your crops, and, finally, you get to harvest all your hard work. So I think that nonlinear trajectory of research was a challenge, but I also think it's a very rewarding part of doing research as well.

My lab is also very collaborative. People are willing to collaborate with each other all the time and collaborate with other labs on different projects. There was definitely a lot of support there -when I had a problem, I could go to grad students or other undergrads to brainstorm. When working on my project, I also had biweekly meetings with my PI and other students. We would present progress and go over next steps, which was very helpful in keeping me on track.

N-L: What does receiving this scholarship mean to you, both personally and professionally?

ET: Research has been a very big part of my academic journey - and it's what I want to do in the future. My goals are to go into academia and start my own lab, so receiving this scholarship is definitely very validating for me in terms of recognizing the work that I've done over the past few years. But even the process of applying to the Goldwater itself was very rewarding - it challenged me to think about why I'm doing what I'm doing and what my interests really are. It challenged me to do more reflection.

N-L: What future plans do you hold for your research? Are you continuing in this direction or planning to explore new areas?

ET: Currently, I am working on submitting a first-author manuscript, detailing the platform that I've developed. That's my immediate next step. In the future, I'm interested in expanding the scope of my platform - whether it be using more advanced deep-learning models that can give us better mechanistic insights into how lipid nanoparticles are actually working, or whether it be expanding the platform's optimization - looking at how we can not just optimize carriers, but also the genetic payloads they deliver. I'm interested in continuing to explore how computational tools can accelerate this field.

N-L: What advice do you have for students who want to apply for a scholarship or follow a path like yours in research?

ET: Finding good mentors and a good environment is so important. I was very fortunate to have a supportive and collaborative lab environment. I think that finding an environment where you think that you can do continuous learning is very important - that is, findinga lab that you're interested in, as well as an environment that supports you to develop those interests and is willing to help find resources to support you.

I think the beauty of academia and academic research is that every path is different. Succeeding in this space is not just about accolades, but finding your own passion and your interests. Academia allows you to develop those interests and turn them into something meaningful.

From the outside, I look like everyone else.

I speak, I smile, I laugh at the right times. In lectures, I raise my hand and make clever points. At social events, I hover by the snack table, nodding along, making small talk about professors, weekend plans, research. Nothing seems out of place. I'm functional. Friendly. Normal.

But inside, I am doing mental math.

Every second of every interaction, I am solving an equation: If she raises her eyebrow, what does it mean? If I laugh now, will it seem fake? Does my voice sound too flat? Too eager? I track every face, every tone, every unspoken rule. There's no autopilot here. No intuition. Just a deeply rehearsed play.

That play has a name. It's called masking.

Masking is what autistic people do to survive in a world that wasn't built for us. For me, it started early. I noticed I didn't always understand what was funny to others or why someone was upset or how to tell if I was being too quiet or too much. So I watched. I memorized. I mirrored. I made myself into a reflection of what the world wanted to see.

I'm considered mildly autistic. That means I fall into what's sometimes called Level 1 Autism Spectrum Disorder, people who can often appear "typical" but still face significant challenges. We might make eye contact, speak fluently, hold down jobs or do well in school. But our brains are still wired differently. Social interactions don't come naturally; they come from study, from practice, from internal scripts that run like code under our words.

Sometimes, people say, "You don't seem autistic."

They mean it as a compliment. I know that. But it never feels like one. It feels like: You're good at hiding. You're doing a great job erasing yourself.

Because here's what they don't see: After a day of smiling and blending in, I'm so tired I feel like I've run a marathon. I lie in bed replaying conversations like game film, cringing at moments that felt off. I panic over texts I haven't replied to because I don't know what the right tone is. I wonder if people actually like me or just like the version of myself I've crafted for them.

Masking, for me, isn't just a habit. It's an armor. And armor gets heavy.

There's a strange kind of grief that comes with being good at masking. You earn praise, friendships, opportunities, all through a version of yourself that doesn't quite feel like you. And then you wonder: If I stopped trying so hard, would any of it stay? Would anyone stay?

And yet, masking kept me safe. It helped me avoid ridicule. It helped me feel like I belonged, even if that belonging was conditional. It gave me the illusion of ease, the comfort of invisibility. It let me pass.

But passing is not peace.

Autism, even in its mildest form, is not easy. It means I can give a class presentation without flinching but feel completely lost when someone tells a joke, and everyone laughs except me. It means I can memorize textbooks and lab protocols but can't always tell if someone's being sarcastic. It means I can carry conversations but rarely feel like I'm part of the group.

I've gotten better at letting myself be real - in moments, with certain people. I've started admitting when I don't understand a social cue, when I need silence instead of small talk, when I'm not okay. And the people who stay in those moments - those are the ones I hold close.

I don't want pity. I'm not broken. I'm not sad.

I just want to show that, even when someone looks like they've got it all figured out - when they're high-functioning, smiling, thriving - they might still be fighting to be understood. Fighting to stay afloat. Fighting to not disappear behind the mask.

There is strength in survival. There is art in adaptation. But there's also a cost. And, when we recognize that cost - when we make room for people to be unmasked, to be strange, to be themselves - we all get to breathe a little easier.

So, no, you might not know I'm autistic when you meet me.

But I am - in every moment, every smile, every word.

And I'm learning, slowly, that I don't have to hide to be worthy.

I just have to be.

That's enough.

Nishad Okutoyi is a freshman from Nairobi, Kenya studying Neuroscience.

University governance

To become trustees, the Trusteeship, Nominations and By-Laws Committee first nominate individuals who are alumni or who have made distinguished contributions to the University. Individuals are then elected for a six-year term by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Board. Board members are permitted to serve two, six-year terms with the opportunity for a third term in an "exceptional case."

The Board has 12 standing committees and two subcommittees - including the Academic Policy, Audits and Institutional Risk Management, Philanthropy and Engagement, Compensation, Finance, External Affairs and Community Engagement, Intermediate Sanctions, Investments and Student Life committees. The entire Board meets at least four times a year, and the committees meet before full Board meetings as needed.

Unlike some other Universities that have board meetings open to the public - such as the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University and George Washington University - Hopkins board meetings are not open to the public or general student body.

In response to a question by The News-Letter regarding public board meetings, Chair-Elect Jeffrey Barber emphasized the importance of the Board's current meeting status, as well as the mechanisms through which the Board does engage with Hopkins community.

"As fiduciaries, the Board acts in the best interest of the University, and Trustees must not be influenced by the opinions of the loudest voice," he wrote. "It has been great to see the creation of the Cross-Institutional Student Advisory Committee (CSAC), the Staff Advisory Board, and the Johns Hopkins University Council (JHUC) as organized avenues of shared governance, to hear feedback and to engage on topics, which are important to all members of the community."

The Board of Trustees have approved the formation of two notable new bodies: the Name Review Board (NRB) and the Public Interest Investment Advisory Council (PIIAC). The NRB is responsible for reviewing proposals for the de-naming or re-naming of institutional features - including professorships, programs and buildings. Most recently, the NRB announced that the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship would be renamed the Undergraduate Research Fellowship. The PIIAC, formed in 2014, is responsible for reviewing requests for changes or modifications to the University's investment portfolio and most recently declined to divest from Israel.

Who are the trustees?

Barber was elected as the 18th chair of the University Board of Trustees in late February and is set to begin a six-year term on July 1. A graduate of the University with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science ('95), he currently serves as a managing director at TA Associates, a private equity investment firm in Boston.

The Board comprises two-thirds men and one-third women. The most represented industry is finance, making up 41% of the Board. Other industries include business - such as communications, real estate, consulting or development - at 16.6%, medicine or biotechnology at 11.1%, law at 8.3%, nonprofit/philanthropy at 8.3%, technology at 5.6%, and media at 2.8%.

Board members are primarily based in Baltimore, Md. (8) and New York, N.Y. (8), with additional members concentrated in Washington, D.C. (4), Boston, Mass. (3), San Francisco, Calif. (2) and Philadelphia, Pa. (2). Four members reside abroad - three in the United Kingdom and one in the Netherlands.

The News-Letter conducted an analysis of publicly available donation information from the Federal Election Commission for all trustees and ex officios. Over the past decade, the current members of the Board have contributed a total of $1,311,136 in donations to political causes, with $1,117,986 (85.27%) given to Democrats and $174,450 (13.31%) to Republicans.

History and evolution of the Board

In 2009, the Board of Trustees worked closely with Richard Chait, a governance expert from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, to undergo restructuring. The changes ultimately implemented by the steering committee included the reduction of the Board's size from 65 in 2010 to 35 by 2015, elimination of the four young trustee positions and the implementation of term limits.

In an email to The News-Letter, Chait declined to discuss specifics of his work with the University, but agreed to speak about the role and evolution of trustees in higher education governance.

"[The Board of Trustees] hold the ultimate powers, which is to render decisions, and, of course, select and evaluate as necessary transition president," he said. "But I think for most boards, particularly at universities like Hopkins, the real influence is that the Board of Trustees works hand and glove with the senior management team, which provides an opportunity for the President or the President's Cabinet to test drive ideas and to gain an objective assessment."

Chait also noted that, in the past decade, boards have broadly become more active and engaged, namely due to shifts in university governance and policy.

"[Being a trustee] is no longer simply an honorific appointment," he stated. "Since the inauguration, boards and universities have put all hands on deck because there are such profound changes underway, particularly at research universities like Hopkins."

In an email to The News-Letter, Barber also discussed the political changes impacting Hopkins and higher education, and how the Board plans to navigate the uncertain moment.

"We are certainly in a time of unprecedented change. As you read recently in President Daniels' letter, Johns Hopkins, like other universities, has experienced a fast and far-reaching cascade actions affecting higher education and federally sponsored research," he wrote. "We anticipate that, in the coming months, there could be other aspects of our mission that could be impacted."

Conflicts of interest

Many members of the Board of Trustees serve on other boards, ranging from corporations to nonprofits to schools. Recently, this has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and influence on University policy.

In 2023, reporting by The Chronicle of Higher Education raised concerns about President Ronald J. Daniels's position as both the president of Hopkins and a board member of at least three companies that do business with the University.

One of those companies is BridgeBio Pharma, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that Daniels joined the Board of Directors of in February 2020. Four months after his addition, the company issued a press release that announced the company's new collaboration with Hopkins to translate research into medicines.

Daniels sat on the compensation committee for BridgeBio Pharma, which is responsible for setting compensation for the CEOs, executives and other members of the Board. One of those members of the Board was Charles Homcy, an emeritus member of the University's Board of Trustees who received over $2.8 million of compensation in 2022. Notably, Homcy sat on the compensation committee responsible for determining Daniels's salary as president until he joined BridgeBio's board, raising concerns about the independence of board members.

In a statement to The Chronicle at the time, a University spokesperson stated that the Board had approved Daniels's external board positions and that Daniels was not involved in University decisions involving the companies he serves on the boards of.

Another trustee, William J. Stromberg currently serves as the chief investment officer for GE HealthCare at Hopkins on an interim basis. GE HealthCare is a health technology company that partnered with Hopkins Medicine to form the Judy Reitz Capacity Command Center in 2020. The Command Center, which still is active today, utilizes advanced data technology to manage patient flow and volume throughout the center. In 2020, Stromberg was the director of the T. Row Price Group, a global investment firm, and was not working at GE HealthCare.

In an email to The News-Letter, a University spokesperson stated that trustees will recuse themselves from matters considered by the Board when there is a "perceived or actual conflict of interest" and are held to conflict of interest policies and mechanisms that also apply to University employees.

"[These policies] include a requirement that the Board of Trustees evaluate and approve transactions in which a trustee or other university official or family member has an existing or potential financial interest and a requirement that trustees annually disclose entities owned or controlled in full or in part to university management for awareness in contracting decisions," they wrote.

The spokesperson argued that it is common for faculty, researchers, administrators and trustees to have connections to outside companies or entities, such as faculty who develop intellectual property for corporate firms or have their research projects sponsored, and the University has "robust conflict of interest policies and practices" in place.

"Due to the highly collaborative nature of major research universities, we frequently deal with these kinds of issues and have in place robust guardrails," they wrote. "It is common for faculty, researchers, administrators, and trustees at major research universities to have ties to outside entities working in their field."

Transparency between students and trustees

The Board created a young trustee position in 1971, which selected one recent graduate of the University to serve one, four-year term with the same voting rights and responsibilities as the other trustees. The top five candidates for the trustee position were selected by a vote from all members of the Hopkins student body - including underclassmen after 1993 - and the Board of Trustees selected the final candidate from the list.

In 2011, the Board abolished the young trustee position, citing that the trustee was always elected from the Homewood Campus schools and, thus, was not a representation of the diverse student body. In its place, they created the Board's Student Life Committee, which was described as consulting "a more diverse group of current students."

In an email to The News-Letter, Barber shared how the Committee on Student Life has aimed to include and engage with students.

"Students from all academic divisions and levels are asked to join Committee meetings and special Trustee lunches as well as other events to provide information, perspective, and counsel on issues impacting student life," he wrote. "During the past few years, Trustees have met with students from every JHU division on a variety of topics, including athletics, the student experience, and civic engagement across the institution."

Barber continued by noting that the establishment of the Life Design Lab was a result of feedback received by the Student Life Committee regarding career services at the University, and he included that students can work with SGA and CSAC to raise concerns, which the groups can then elevate to the Board.

However, many students express that they are largely unaware of the Board's responsibilities and processes. In an interview with The News-Letter, freshman Abeer Shuja voiced a desire for greater transparency and communication.

"In truth, I know very little about the Board of Trustees, and I'm sure that sentiment is reflected amongst fellow students. I feel that there should be more efforts to address its existence and elaborate on its importance to the student body," Shuja stated.

Freshman Zehra Taqvi corroborated these sentiments in an interview with The News-Letter, stating that she heard and believed many misconceptions about the Board.

"Most of what I've heard about the Board has come through students, and it's hard to know what's accurate. But from what I have seen and heard, it feels like the Board mostly acts in the interest of wealthy donors and their own networks, rather than the student body. They seem very removed from the actual student experience," Taqvi said.

There have been recent calls by students for the young trustee position or equivalent positions to be re-established.

In 2023, the Student Government Association (SGA) - one of the groups consulted by the Student Life Committee - unanimously passed a resolution calling for the establishment of no more than 4 Young Trustees and no more than 2 Faculty Trustees. The resolution called for the faculty trustees to be part-time emeritus faculty members, nominated by the University Council, and the young trustees to be recent graduates from Homewood undergraduate and graduate programs, nominated by the Cross-Institutional Student Advisory Committee.

The resolution argued that the University had deviated from the practices of several of its peers by not providing recent graduates or faculty with an opportunity to participate in the University's governance and provided examples of 10 peer institutions, including Brown University, Duke University, Stanford University, and Cornell University that allow participation from those groups on their boards.

The resolution continued by stating that the Student Life Committee did not effectively solicit student feedback and consider student voices, including from SGA.

"Students are only consulted by the Student Life Committee in a limited, ad hoc fashion, and the input of the Homewood Student Government Association is not solicited when the Student Life Committee is planning to meet with undergraduate students," the resolution stated. "Instead, SGA leadership is generally only informed ahead of a single Student Life Committee meeting at which the Board of Trustees solicits SGA participation and on scant few other occasions. "

Jackson Morris, the Vice President of SGA in 2023-24, introduced the resolution to the Senate. In an email to The News-Letter, Morris explained that the Student Life Committee has historically invited SGA to present to the committee and that although trustees seem engaged, there was no follow up during his time.

"[SGA] never received follow up from the Board or the administration regarding our many proposals made during our presentation to the Board - reinforcing the notion that our role was seen as advisory and not empowered to make decisions nor necessitating a response," he wrote.

More recently, the 2024-25 SGA Executive Board did not present to the Board's Student Life Committee at all during the year.

Morris continued by sharing his motivations for introducing the resolution and the changes to University governance that he had hoped to foster.

"I introduced the resolution because of my belief that shared governance entails a voting presence in the room where it happens and cannot be approximated by eclectic, unempowered, and unelected advisory bodies of students and faculty. The University's increasing reliance on these appointed boards in place of leaders elected by their peers is in contrast to the University's message on the importance of democracy," he wrote. "[...] The presence of respected recent graduates and emeritus faculty would enhance the Board's stated goal of wise stewardship and counteract the trend of the diminishing decision-making power of students and faculty - without violating the Board's bylaws."

I used to hate silence. The silence of taxis, elevators and long lines unnerved and perplexed me. So did the eyes desperately darting downwards, plummeting into isolation as soon as someone stepped into an elevator. Short, cordial greetings met with even shorter goodbyes during taxi rides. A person standing a foot away from someone else in line for an hour without acknowledging they exist.

These moments held me captive to the overbearing silence that distinguished strangers from acquaintances. As someone who obsessively fills the space around me, I hated the separation that all these silences entailed. I never imagined the power they could harness.

In the fall of 2024, I began training to be a peer listener in A Place to Talk (APTT), an organization that offers peer listening services to students on the Homewood Campus. I was prepared to learn how to verbally support my fellow peers by providing comforting responses and empathetic questions.

I never expected my mentors to tell me I had to practice "silences," an APTT term for shared moments of silence. How could I possibly comfort my fellow peers by leaving them to fend for themselves? I had thought silence meant uncertainty. Helplessness. A lack of direction. How could I ever surrender my peers to this overbearing solitude?

I will never forget the first time my training group practiced using silences. I was speaking to my friend. After professing my problems, I expected a validating "mhm," or at least questions about how I planned to move forward.

Instead, I was just left with her unceasing eye contact, empathetic nods and silence. In this moment, neither of us rushed to fill the space between us. I began to reflect on what I had just said, letting it sit in the magnitude it deserved. Then, I continued to talk, diving deeper into my thoughts. I came to realizations too overbearing to be acknowledged in anything but silence.

In this moment, silence was not a surrender to helplessness, but a discovery of strength in vulnerability. My thoughts and feelings were no longer overshadowed by distractions. I could sense their meaning and magnitude fully. After this space was initiated by my friend's empathy, it was powerful enough to stand on its own. It was in this that I found something more powerful than words, more provoking than questions and more defined than language: the sound of silence.

I started to embrace silence as an invitation for curiosity, vulnerability and appreciation. I realized that silence was never meant to show ignorance, but understanding. Every moment of silence I faced was actually an opportunity to listen. A moment to learn. To reflect. To delve deeper into the significance of the constant noise.

I began using silence as an opportunity to develop relationships. I became obsessed with diving deeper into the connections I made with people who I briefly crossed paths with. I invited my Uber driver to share his story with me, learning about how he has tried to start a better life in the U.S. and about his plans to unite with his eight siblings in Turkey. I learned how one of my favorite people who works at CharMar is a girl mom and how the security guard I walk past every day at Olin Hall is actually a man named Watson, one of the most compassionate and philosophic people I have ever met. I even discovered that the girl standing next to me in an elevator shared my favorite music artist.

I began to collect these pieces of people's lives, and it wasn't by being overwhelmingly extroverted or by talking about trivial things like how nice the weather is. It was from initiating connections with empathy and curiosity. It was from transcending silence into a space to appreciate and bear witness to others' lives. Silence became a moment of unity, understanding and empathy as it evolved into a space for curiosity and connection.

I used to wring myself dry trying to fill the silences around me. But finally, silence transcended into stories as strangers became conduits for connection. I could hear it: the all-encompassing, deafening sound of silence.

Madelyn Dryier is a freshman from Frankfort, Ill. majoring in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.

The News-Letter: Could you give us a brief description of your research projects?

Edmund Sumpena: I joined Craig Jones and Amir Kashani's lab [in] freshman year and started leading a large-scale project with multiple parts that has spanned until now. I'm developing AI technology that has translational and clinical implications, which includes developing generative models, developing convolutional neural networks and making sure that it outputs images that are clinically interpretable and reliable for diagnostic purposes and clinical studies. Specifically, I'm working on improving clinical workflows involving quality assessment and screening in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). These are 3D, high-resolution images of the retina. The first part was essentially doing artifact detection: recognizing quality defects that are part of imaging and ensuring good quality. And the second part, which is what I'm doing now, is to improve the quality of images without adding in fake vessel structures as part of the images.

N-L: What tools are you using in your research?

ES: Our project is really unique in the sense that it is not really a topic that's been explored very extensively in literature. We're working on high-resolution OCTA imaging data. And in a lot of literature, they focus on 2D images, but our lab has been really focused on doing a more thorough and comprehensive analysis on 3D volumes. So that means I'm creating AI models from scratch on PyTorch - an AI development platform - designing and implementing ideas from scratch, and I've come to realize that that just takes way longer [than repurposing previously existing models]. But I think it's just been a really rewarding process of kind of learning through application and figuring out exactly how to develop models that are clinically relevant and applicable.

N-L: What drew you to your particular research field?

ES: One of the mobile apps I developed in high school was geofencing technology to detect when people exit or enter a particular region. I applied this technology to help dementia patients who are wandering, where a patient leaves a facility and then could go outside and get injured. I ended up taking my app and developing it into an anti-wandering technology app called WanderGuardian and tested it on real people with dementia. The process of going to them, figuring out what I need to improve and continuing to refine the app, taught me that the value in developing technology is in its application. And that drew me into medical AI research in general, which brought me to the Wilmer Eye Institute. We're working with direct clinical data, not for the sole purpose of publishing a paper or creating a shiny new model, but to work with different centers to apply our technology.

N-L: How has Hopkins and its programs supported your independence and ability to explore your research topics?

ES: One of the main reasons why I came to Hopkins was because of the interdisciplinary emphasis between engineering and medicine. One thing that I really appreciate about Kashani and Jones is that they give me a lot of independence in the way I'm developing my technology. I've learned the ins and outs of the research process, starting from developing a new idea to project proposals and grants to developing the technology, and then finally writing out the manuscript. I think that it's been a valuable experience.

The professors are really supportive. I also think that with Hopkins, there's a lot of flexibility in what path you want to take in terms of your course progression. I took some in-depth upper-level [computer science] classes in my early stages, like Natural Language Processing, and I also took Cells and Systems, which gives me a broad, diverse set of classes. And I think that as that happens, it allows me to build upon all that foundational knowledge. It also allowed me to build the toolkit in order to continue my research. Jones and Kashani allow me to break things, fail and then figure out what failed. They not only give me lots of support and guidance but also an experience on how to fail firsthand so that I can learn to tackle the obstacles from that. What I enjoy about research is to figure out how to innovate.

And for extracurricular support: one club I'm involved in is Advocates for Baltimore Community Health, a community service club where you go outside, volunteer and interact with the homeless. We do clinical volunteering, we help the disabled, and being able to interact with those people and understanding who we're helping and visualizing who we're helping. Seeing that so many people have ongoing, unmet needs has grounded me in the bigger picture. It's reminded me that my work isn't just about the technical details of a specific project: It's about serving society and improving the well-being of the community. That broader sense of purpose has been a major motivating force for me here at Hopkins.

N-L: What's your ideation process like?

ES: It's certainly a lot of reading of existing literature, but also relying a lot on the experts that we have, like the ophthalmologists. And one thing that I've found to be the bulk of research is that I start off with a baseline idea, a baseline concept, and it's amazing how one problem branches off into a ton of separate problems. If I believed in my idea, I would continue to develop it, and then spend a couple months working on it. One of my ideas was adopted and became one of the main parts of our project. Ideation of new research projects requires curiosity and the willingness to innovate and explore.

N-L: Were there any challenges you faced during your research, and how did you overcome them?

ES: I think the hardest part about research is I'm tackling a problem that no one else has tackled. There are so many times where I encounter a problem, which I don't know how to solve, I spend a lot of time just to sit and think about the problem. I think the value of simply thinking is often underrated, especially as a researcher or student, where there's constant pressure to always be doing or trying something new. But taking a moment to pause and reflect can be incredibly powerful. Sometimes the best ideas come from exploring connections to fields that aren't directly related to medicine, like physics or neuroscience. Drawing inspiration from these areas can offer fresh perspectives and help move a project or even the entire field forward.

For example, in my first project, we were having a lot of issues because optical scans contain a lot of fine vasculature. These are high-frequency signals. It's very easy for convolutional neural networks, which is a type of AI model, to treat them as noise. Essentially, they're designed to filter out noise as part of its learning process. So I thought long and hard about this. The model had to attend to find details, but also "understand" the bigger picture. Neural networks can't do this inherently. So I ended up developing a model that allows each layer of the neural network to essentially integrate information from the fine details but also the global structures. And that was a game changer in that project.

N-L: What advice do you have for students looking to apply for the scholarship?

I'd say the biggest advice I have for students is to be genuine about your motivation. Don't try to craft your application based on what you think they like. Craft it based on your genuine motivation and drive behind your research and talk about all the experiences where you took initiative in your research. Talk about the experiences where you get hands-on experience with grant writing and project goals; different dimensions of research.

The News-Letter: Could you briefly describe your research?

Lance Xu: My research journey started my junior year of high school. I started my own psychology research project based on the framing effects and I did research on something that hadn't really been researched before in the field, and I got some really good results. I won some pretty decent awards at science fairs. And then my senior year, there was a program that my high school offered where we collaborated with the Pennsylvania Biotechnology Center. And I spent a year where I did research on hepatocellular carcinoma, which is a type of liver cancer. And then I liked that kind of wet lab research a lot. Once I got to Hopkins, I joined the Andrew Holland Lab, which specializes in mitosis. In that lab, I worked on finding specific synthetic lethal gene pairs that would allow for the development of cancer therapeutics, taking advantage of the dysregulated mitosis that cancer cells have. Basically, I investigated genes that played roles in cancer and tried to see if dysregulating certain genes could be a possible avenue for therapeutics for cancer. After a year of the Holland Lab, I joined the [Jordan] Green Lab. I work on engineering PBAE (poly(beta-amino ester)) nanoparticles to effectively deliver transcription factors.

N-L: What drew you to this particular field?

LX: Before my senior year, I got into a program, and basically the only option was to do molecular biology research or cancer research. And I ended up doing a year of research basically every day, and it was really fun. That's what got me into this field. My interest just took me there.

N-L: How has Hopkins been supportive of your research, and how has it created opportunities for you to be able to work on your project?

LX: Hopkins is definitely very good for research. It was actually very easy to get a position. I emailed two professors, and one of them - the [Andrew] Holland Lab - responded. So it's very easy to get a position. And honestly, Hopkins has a lot of research support for undergraduates. The [Hopkins Office for Undergraduate Research] has been very good for supporting me. I got [Provost's Undergraduate Research Award (PURA)] my first year here, which I'm very fortunate to have gotten. And they funded my summer, so I was able to work on a lot of the stuff I wrote about in my Goldwater over the summer of my freshman year. So overall, I think the support for research at Hopkins is very nice, and it definitely helped me to get this award, and it'll definitely help me in the future when I plan to go to grad school.

N-L: What was the Goldwater application process like?

LX: You first get nominated, and there's four people that can get nominated as part of the internal thing. You have to write a three-page research summary on a project that you've done before, and I wrote it on my [Andrew] Holland Lab project dealing with mitosis and finding genes that are dysregulated in mitosis. It's three pages: Sounds like a lot, but it's very hard to put everything that you want in three pages. I ended up spending weeks on weeks cutting down, like two sentences. Every single word in that essay was very hard. It took me a really, really, really, really long time, but after meeting with my mentor many times back and forth, like, literally, five or six times, and sending it to my friends, I finally got it submitted. Also, as part of that, you need to write a short two-pager of all the research you've done. I would definitely recommend to start early and to definitely consult your resources.

N-L: Did you encounter any challenges or difficulties during the research process? What do you wish could be changed about the field of research and how the research scene is going?

LX: In research, you will fail. And I have failed many times. I'm very, very, very fortunate that I joined at a place where my mentor had ironed out all the initial stages. So it was just turning out data at that point. But I got to the point where, once my mentor left for her industry job, I started my own projects and became more independent. I realized how much failure is really in research. I spent almost the whole summer chasing different projects and starting different things, and I think, quite literally, none of them worked. So it can be discouraging, but you need to realize that that's how research is. You will always have periods where, especially if you're doing your own independent project, you'll definitely have periods where nothing will work. But if you stick through it and lean on your mentor's experience a little bit, ask them what's going wrong, collaborate with them, you will get through it just fine. But it's very hard to fail and still find motivation to continue, but you need to in order to survive.

N-L: What are you looking forward to doing in the future with the research and the background that you have right now?

LX: I initially applied to Goldwater as a [doctoral student]. I'm now thinking about a MD-PhD, and my dream right now is to run a lab specializing in finding cellular mechanisms that underpin cancer development, and also applying that to the clinic maybe as an oncologist. I definitely know that I want to run my own lab and deal with cancer. So that's what I plan to do in the future. It'll be a long journey. An MD-PhD is eight or nine years. But hopefully by the end of that, I want to integrate my research into the clinic with both my MD and [doctoral degree].

N-L: What advice do you have for students who are looking for research or looking to apply to these scholarships?

LX: My advice for students is that if you want to apply for PURA, Goldwater or any of those fellowships, start research by joining a lab where there's a very supportive environment. Set what you want from the lab right from the start; say, "Hey, I'm trying to become more independent. I want to do this in the future. I want to apply to fellowships." Set expectations. Go into a lab a few times a week, work on the data with your mentor, and then when it's time to apply for a fellowship, start early and consult with mentors often. Maybe they can revise your draft back and forth, and then after that, hopefully get the fellowship.

N-L: This is a little specific, but I know that a lot of students are struggling to find labs who would let them be independent. Getting a good mentor is also really hard. What made you realize that your mentor was a good mentor?

LX: Honestly, sometimes it's just like a vibe check. Other times, I think it's very important when you first start during the lab, maybe the interview part, you definitely want to communicate to your mentor about what you want to do. I think it's important to tell your mentor that you want to become more independent. Some students just want to pipette all day, and that's fine. But some students want to become more independent. They want to lead their own projects, and that's really fine. Mentors see both types of students, but if you don't tell them what you want to do, then they can't help you. So it's very important to communicate to your mentor about what you want in the future, and if your mentor is very supportive, then that's a green flag. I think the best, my best advice is to set your expectations straight away.

The News-Letter: Could you briefly describe your research project, especially the one you wrote about in your Goldwater application?

Gavin Wang: For the application essay, I wrote about a project I started the summer after my freshman year in Professor David Sing's group, working with graduate student William Balmer. We were studying HAT-P-67b: the largest known exoplanet by radius. It had been suspected to have an extremely low density due to its size, but no accurate mass measurements had been made - only rough bounds. My job was to analyze data that [Balmer] collected and determine the planet's mass using the radial velocity (or Doppler shift) method. That involves studying how the spectrum of the host star changes over time as the planet orbits and tugs on it. We found that the planet is about twice the radius of Jupiter but only half its mass, making it less dense than water - about 0.1 g/cm³. What's especially interesting is that models predict such a planet should lose its atmosphere within 100 million years, yet this one is 1.7 billion years old. I also found that the star has recently started evolving and becoming brighter, meaning the planet is on the verge of atmospheric loss. We are lucky that we can capture the planet at this transitory stage.

N-L: What drew you to this type of research?

GW: I've been interested in astronomy since high school, and I remember coming across news about exoplanet discoveries that really captured my imagination. That led me to join the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite collaboration, which was my first real exposure to research. I contributed to the discovery of new planets, and that was my first sort of real research experience. I've been pursuing related research ever since - eventually continuing it at Hopkins.

N-L: How has Hopkins - or the people in your lab - supported your independence as a researcher?

GW: I've been really lucky to have great mentorship, especially from Néstor Espinoza at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). My first project with him was one-on-one, and he gave me a lot of guidance while letting me lead the work. I was still in high school or just starting at Hopkins at the time, and I didn't know much, so his support meant a lot. He included me in group meetings, helped me connect with other researchers, and gave me the resources I needed to grow. That environment definitely helped me build the confidence and skills to take the lead on future projects.

N-L: Did the school or your lab help you with the Goldwater application? How was that process?

GW: Yes, both my mentors wrote recommendation letters, which I believe were very strong, and they also gave me feedback on my essay. The school's National Fellowships Program (NFP) was also extremely helpful. They provided a Canvas page with resources, organized multiple meetings to walk us through the process, and gave personalized feedback. Kathleen Barry [Director of NFP] and the NFP team were great about reviewing my materials. Overall, the support from both my mentors and the school made a big difference and definitely strengthened my application.

N-L: I'm really glad to hear that. What challenges did you face when you first started doing research, especially since you mentioned leading a project early on?

GW: One major challenge was during my freshman year when I was analyzing data for about 300 exoplanets. Running my code on all that data would take an enormous amount of time - months, even. I wasn't sure how to make the process more efficient, but my mentors helped me optimize the code. That made a big difference. Also, each new project I've done has involved learning something completely new, whether it's reading academic papers, learning statistics or picking up new coding skills. My mentors often provided textbooks, resources and coding tips, which helped me get up to speed.

N-L: That sounds like a great support system. What advice would you give to students who are interested in research - either in astronomy or more generally - and maybe those considering applying to fellowships like the Goldwater?

GW: I would definitely encourage anyone interested in research to go for it. It's been a really rewarding experience for me. I'd suggest reaching out to faculty or scientists - even just sending an email, like I did with Espinoza when I got into Hopkins. A lot of researchers are happy to mentor [undergraduate students] if they have the time. Specifically for astronomy, the STScI is a fantastic resource at Hopkins, and it's one of the reasons I chose to come here. Since the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope, there's been incredible science happening right across the street from campus. As for fellowships like the Goldwater, I'd say don't be intimidated. It might seem like a lot - three recommendation letters, several essays - but if you break it down step by step, it's manageable. Even if you don't get it, writing the application helps you reflect on your goals and experiences, which is valuable for future opportunities like grad school.

N-L: Thank you so much for all the insight. What's next for you - any upcoming projects, or plans for grad school?

GW: The project I mentioned earlier - the one from my Goldwater application - was recently accepted for publication, which is really exciting. I'm looking forward to seeing it published and maybe promoting it in some way. As for the future, I'll be applying to [doctoral] programs in the fall, focusing on astronomy, astrophysics or physics, with a continued interest in exoplanets. I'm especially interested in characterizing their atmospheres and formation histories using data from new instruments and techniques. There's a lot to explore, and I'm really excited about what's ahead.

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 imposing increasingly unreasonable demands on universities that target the core academic mission of higher education.

The University must take this moment as an opportunity to solidify its commitment to research and academic freedom. Faculty, students and staff -not to mention the communities they serve - depend on Hopkins to take a stand against aggressive and malicious government actions.

Universities should protect their communities against such unwarranted government interference, as exemplified by Harvard University's response to the Trump administration. The federal government demanded that the university discontinue all diversity, equity and inclusion programs, be subject to an audit by the government for "viewpoint diversity" and share all hiring data with the government until at least 2028.

In response, Harvard refused to comply, powerfully writing: "'Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government's terms as an agreement in principle.'" As a result, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants to the university.

Columbia University, by contrast, caved to the Trump administration after it lost $400 million in federal funds, placing its own Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department under oversight and creating a new security force that can arrest and remove people from campus. Despite meeting the administration's initial demands, Columbia is not safe from further cuts; the University just lost another $250 million in federal funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Columbia's concessions have irrevocably altered its institutional integrity and commitment to academic freedom. Perhaps they will have their funding reinstated, but, even then, what will be left of Columbia? The university will be little more than a shell of its former self, whose students no longer have faith in being protected.

Hopkins and other private universities must not follow Columbia's example. Should the Trump administration turn to us with a list of similar demands, we hope we can count on Hopkins to protect its values, its programs and, most importantly, the people that have made our University what it is today.

Even before demands are handed down, Hopkins and all universities must take steps to band together in defense of higher education and academic values. The Big Ten Universities recently formed a Mutual Defense Compact to defend academic freedom and research.

On April 22, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) published a powerful statement opposing the Trump administration's "unprecedented government overreach and political interference." Over 180 University presidents signed on, including the Presidents of Duke, Harvard, Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, the University of Maryland, and Princeton.

Despite being a member of the AACU, Hopkins did not sign onto the letter. At these critical moments when higher education is under attack, Hopkins must join other institutions in opposing the Trump administration - not stay silent and hope to fly under the radar.

Pick 1: TENNESSEE TITANS: Cam Ward QB, University of Miami

At this point in the draft cycle it seems all but a given that Cam Ward will be the first player off of the board. Ward is coming off of an incredibly successful season at Miami, where he threw for over 4000 yards and 39 touchdowns, production that should translate to the league in some form. For the Titans, there is no guarantee that they will be in a position to draft the best quarterback in future years, so it makes sense for them to take Ward while they can.

Pick 2: CLEVELAND BROWNS: Travis Hunter WR/CB, University of Colorado

It has become difficult to find something to say about Travis Hunter that hasn't already been said. He is truly a one-of-a-kind player, and it's unlikely we'll ever see someone like him again. Playing both sides of the ball, Hunter would be an incredible addition to a Browns offense that already features some solid players in Jerry Jeudy, David Njoku and Elijah Moore. He would also be one of the top CB2s in the league behind Denzel Ward, and could help solidify a Browns defense that struggled last year.

Pick 3: NEW YORK GIANTS: Abdul Carter EDGE, Penn State University

Carter is next up in the long line of athletic freaks out of Penn State. He possesses some of the craziest bend you will ever see from an edge rusher, and, when paired with his explosive first step, Carter is almost impossible to stop. Sure, the Giants drafted Kayvon Thibodeaux with a top five pick a couple of years ago, but with his slightly disappointing play since entering the league, it should not stop the Giants from taking a potentially generational player in Carter.

Pick 4: NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: Will Campbell OL, Louisiana State University

Will Campbell is an interesting prospect to evaluate because of his less-than-ideal arm length. Campbell is probably the most talented offensive lineman in the class, but, in light of questions surrounding his ability to stick at tackle in the NFL, he may fall in the draft. There is a world where he might slide out of the top 10, but there has been considerable traction to New England recently, and I could see them trying to lock in a franchise tackle with the fourth overall pick.

Pick 5: JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS: Mason Graham DL, University of Michigan

Graham is another player who has faced criticism due to his arm length, but, once again, his play on the field speaks for itself. Graham was an invaluable part of Michigan's National Championship run in 2023, wreaking havoc on both rushing and passing downs. The Jags have significant holes along their interior defensive line, and Graham could slot seamlessly from day one.

Pick 6: LAS VEGAS RAIDERS: Ashton Jeanty RB, Boise State University

After bringing in Head Coach Pete Carroll, and trading for his old quarterback Geno Smith, the Raiders look as if they want to make a playoff push this year. Ashton Jeanty is coming off arguably the greatest college running back season since Barry Sanders, and is far and away the best back in this class. The Raiders have shown they have no issue with taking players at less valuable positions (see: Brock Bowers), and Jeanty could prove just as effective as Bowers was last year.

Pick 7: NEW YORK JETS: Armand Membou OT, University of Missouri

After a tumultuous two seasons of the Aaron Rodgers experiment, the Jets seem to have found their coach to lead them into a new era of football with the arrival of Aaron Glenn. Coming from the success of the Detroit Lions' turnaround, it would make sense for Glenn to prioritize building through the trenches. After Tyron Smith just announced his retirement, it makes sense for the Jets to try and find his replacement alongside last year's first round pick, Olu Fashanu.

Pick 8: CAROLINA PANTHERS: Tetairoa McMillan WR, University of Arizona

The outlook for the Panthers' future is looking a lot better after Bryce Young began to perform better late in the season. There are still a number of holes on the roster, but if the front office can get Young an elite weapon to throw to, it could help speed up his development even further. I think that McMillan is a bit of a victim of prospect fatigue, which has seen him slide down draft boards in the lead-up to the event. Nonetheless, pairing Young and McMillan up should bear positive results all around, and in a weak NFC South, you never know what could happen!

Pick 9: NEW ORLEANS SAINTS: Walter Nolen DL, University of Mississippi

The New Orleans Saints are one of the most confusing franchises in the league. Not only do they always seem to have negative cap space, but they go out and spend it on players that make the least amount of sense for them: take, for example, their signing of Justin Reid this offseason. There are so many holes on this roster, so where better to start than fixing the defensive line with Walter Nolen? There is significant draft buzz that they may instead select Shedeur Sanders to be their future quarterback, but, with their roster in the state it is currently in, I do not think there could be a worse decision.

Pick 10: CHICAGO BEARS: Omarion Hampton RB, University of North Carolina

This might be my craziest take of the draft, but I would not be surprised if the Bears "reach" on a running back. With Jeanty off the board at this point, many might see taking Hampton so high as a bad decision. I would counter with the Detroit Lions' selection of Jahmyr Gibbs at pick twelve. At the time it seemed like a bad pick, but inside Ben Johnson's offense, Gibbs proved to be a valuable asset and has been one of the Lions' best players since entering the league. With Johnson now in Chicago, I think he will try and load up on offense to surround Caleb Williams, and Hampton could be a great addition.

Pick 11: SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Kelvin Banks Jr. OT, University of Texas

It has been a swift fall from grace for the 49ers, and there are now a number of holes on the roster that need filling. Banks could be a great addition to the Shanahan offense and, more importantly, will be a cheap contract for five years while they have to pay Brock Purdy.

Pick 12: DALLAS COWBOYS: Matthew Golden WR, University of Texas

All signs leading up to the draft point toward Golden staying in state and being selected by the Cowboys. Golden is a nuanced route-runner who registered a 4.29 40-yard dash at the NFL Combine, giving him potentially elite upside as a wide receiver in the NFL.

Pick 13: MIAMI DOLPHINS: Will Johnson CB, University of Michigan

There are rumors circulating that the Dolphins may be looking to move on from Jalen Ramsey, and Johnson could slot right into the role that Ramsey leaves. Johnson was the best corner in college football in 2023, and, despite an injury-riddled 2024, I think he still has top-tier CB1 potential.

Pick 14: INDIANAPOLIS COLTS: Tyler Warren TE, Penn State University

The Colts seem like the furthest that Tyler Warren may fall. If you want to imagine what type of player Warren is, just think of a supersized Taysom Hill: he can do everything on offense, whether that is as a receiver, running back, and or even occasionally quarterback, and it's for this reason that could be the piece that completes the Colt's offense.

Pick 15: ATLANTA FALCONS: Jalon Walker LB/EDGE, University of Georgia

Jalon Walker is a bit of a mystery. Is he a linebacker? Is he an edge rusher? No one really knows. What we do know, though, is that Walker has all of the traits needed to succeed, and for a team needing pass-rush help, this could be a savvy move.

Pick 16: ARIZONA CARDINALS: Kenneth Grant DL, University of Michigan

Kenneth Grant is an athletic freak at the nose tackle position with pass rush upside. For a team that needs more help along the defensive line, Grant would be a perfect fit.

Pick 17: CINCINNATI BENGALS: Grey Zabel OL, North Dakota State University

After their offseason re-signings, it might be best for the Bengals to completely sell out to build a super-offense. Zabel has flexibility along the interior offensive line, and could help fill in the hole left by the departure of Alex Cappa.

Pick 18: SEATTLE SEAHAWKS: Colston Loveland TE, University of Michigan

The Seahawks should draft interior offensive line, but GM John Schneider has philosophical differences with that strategy. Instead, I could see them taking the talented tight end out of Michigan, giving new QB Sam Darnold another weapon.

Pick 19: TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS: Jihaad Campbell LB, University of Alabama

With Lavonte David getting close to retirement, the Bucs can find his perfect long-term replacement with the uber-athletic Campbell.

Pick 20: DENVER BRONCOS: Luther Burden WR, University of Missouri

Despite a down season for Mizzou, Luther Burden's talent is undeniable. Burden would be a great weapon to add to Sean Payton's offense immediately, and has some of the highest upside in the class.

Pick 21: PITTSBURGH STEELERS: Derrick Harmon DL, University of Oregon

Despite uncertainty surrounding the QB position, the Steelers need help on their defensive line, and Harmon looks to be a safe prospect who can contribute from day one.

Pick 22: LOS ANGELES CHARGERS: Emeka Egbuka WR, Ohio State University

Egbuka is an incredibly technical receiver, and by all accounts is a great locker room presence as well. He would be a great fit alongside Ladd McConkey, and should fit seamlessly into the Harbaugh culture.

Pick 23: GREEN BAY PACKERS: Mykel Williams EDGE, University of Georgia

I'm not sure there is a more Brian Gutekunst pick than Mykel Williams: an athletic defensive lineman out of Georgia with limited production. I would be surprised if Gutekunst passed on Williams if he is still on the board.

Pick 24: MINNESOTA VIKINGS: Jahdae Barron CB, University of Texas

The Vikings have a strong roster in most places, but corner stands out as somewhere that could be improved. Barron has flexibility as both an outside and a slot corner, and could have a Trent McDuffie-type impact for the Vikings.

Pick 25: HOUSTON TEXANS: Josh Simmons OT, Ohio State University

There are concerns around Simmons' injury history which could see him fall completely out of the first round. However, the talent is there and if Houston can get Simmons healthy, then they will be set for the next decade at tackle.

Pick 26: LOS ANGELES RAMS: Shedeur Sanders QB, University of Colorado

I'm not sure where Sanders will ultimately end up, but there is a chance that the Rams will try and find their QB of the future with Matt Stafford's future up in the air.

Pick 27: BALTIMORE RAVENS: Malaki Starks S, University of Georgia

The Ravens have a history of taking talented players that fall in the draft, and Starks could prove to be another steal a couple of years down the line.

Pick 28: DETROIT LIONS: Mike Green EDGE, Marshall University

The Lions could do with more help on the defensive side of the ball, and given character concerns surrounding Green, he could fall into the lap of Detroit as a talented edge rusher.

Pick 29: WASHINGTON COMMANDERS: James Pearce Jr. EDGE, University of Tennessee

Pearce is another player who has off-the-field concerns, but the talent is undeniable. If Pearce can maximize his upside, he has the potential to be one of the best pass rushers in the entire NFL.

Pick 30: BUFFALO BILLS: Shemar Stewart EDGE, Texas A&M University

Shemar Stewart did not produce much at the college level, only recording 4.5 sacks in his three seasons at A&M. Despite this, Stewart ranked as the most athletic DL prospect in NFL history, and the Bills will hope they can tap into that potential.

Pick 31: KANSAS CITY CHIEFS: Josh Conerly Jr. OT, University of Oregon

After getting obliterated in the Super Bowl, the Chiefs need to fix their offensive line. They signed Jaylon Moore in the offseason, but I don't think that should stop them from drafting a potential franchise tackle in Conerly.

Pick 32: PHILADELPHIA EAGLES: Nick Emmanwori S, University of South Carolina

Emmanwori is another athletic freak, testing as the most athletic safety of all time. Emmanwori has the tape to back it up, and the Eagles could be getting a steal at the back end of the first round.

The 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo marked the first time that much of the world encountered this rapidly-growing sport. Before climbing was introduced to the Olympics, another competition series showcased the world's best: the International Federation of Sport Climbing's (IFSC) World Cups. Formed in 2007, the IFSC is the governing body that strives to "make the world a better place through sport climbing." The IFSC regulates both world and continental cups and organizes Olympic qualifiers.

Last weekend in Keqiao, China kicked off the start of the new season where the fiercest athletes fight for a podium in three disciplines: speed, bouldering and lead. Each discipline requires a unique combination of coordination, strength and technique - an athlete may excel in one, but not another. Boulderers and lead climbers may never learn the intricacies of speed climbing and vice versa. The series spans 11 countries for a total of 18 competitions: six boulder, six lead and six speed. The Keqiao World Cup showcases the world's best boulderers, and the week after is the first lead competition. Team USA sent both men and women and put on a strong showing. 58 women entered qualifying, and a 17 year-old Texas native won the gold.

As climbing rises in popularity, the Los Angeles 2028 Games announced two new medal opportunities in the sport. Previously, lead climbing and bouldering were combined. They are now going to be recognized as independent disciplines. As the sport reaches new heights, more athletes will be recognized for their excellence. Equally exciting, in June 2024 the International Paralympic Committee approved para climbing to officially join the 22 other Paralympic summer sports. The impact of the sport is soaring.

While bouldering and lead are considered the classical disciplines, speed climbing is often the event people picture when they learn that climbing is a competitive sport. Like running, the goal is to get to the finish in the fastest possible time. Both hands and feet need to land in the exact right spot on the holds as every millisecond counts in the five-second race. Every speed route is set up the same way on a vertical 15m (49 feet) high wall. Athletes race in pairs in a tournament-style bracket until the gold medal match determines the victor. They are also fighting for personal bests and to beat the world record.

Contrary to the standardized speed routes, both rope climbing and bouldering have unique routes during each stage of the competition.

The name for lead climbing was coined because in traditional outdoor settings, as one climber ascends they "lead" the other climber up the wall. The climber must clip the rope into a series of quickdraws fastened to the wall. However, in the indoor setting there is only one climber, and the belayer stays stationary on the ground. Athletes test their endurance and fight the "pump" (forearm and finger exhaustion) to get as high on the route as possible over the course of six minutes.

Bouldering is the discipline of power and dynamics. Here, all ropes are foregone and protection is switched to safety mats. Athletes must solve four to five boulder "problems", each marked with a marked zone and top. The competitor with most tops - or zones if the climb wasn't finished - emerges victorious.

As the sport of climbing grows worldwide, competitive series' continue to grow and evolve, captivating and exciting a diverse audience.

Since the inauguration, the Trump administration has fulfilled one of its campaign promises by coming after America's most prestigious universities: bullying Columbia University into abject submission, and threatening many others, including Harvard, Princeton and Cornell. Last week, faced with a set of extreme demands, Harvard defied the Trump administration, taking its battle to the courts. The range of responses - from craven capitulation to principled resistance - has now been established.

There's no doubt that Hopkins is in an exceptionally difficult position. As the top recipient of federal research dollars, we are uniquely vulnerable to the weaponization of government grants and contracts. Little surprise, perhaps, that our leadership has kept quiet. In the interests of avoiding financial calamity, they seem to have reasoned that the prudent path forward is for the University to keep its head low and its mouth shut, and hope the storm blows over.

That strategy has worked to an extent: so far, Hopkins has avoided the Trump administration's direct crosshairs. On the other hand, it hasn't all been smooth sailing. Last month, we made international headlines when Jhpiego - our nonprofit global health affiliate - along with various units in our world-leading School of Public Health and School of Medicine, lost more than $800 million after billionaire Elon Musk fed USAID "into the wood chipper," as he gleefully put it.

Seeking, presumably, to protect core University interests, Hopkins yielded without a fight. The University filed no lawsuits, sought no judicial injunctions nor challenged flagrant violations of administrative procedure as international health programs were indiscriminately cut - even though a federal judge later ruled that the cuts likely violated the Constitution.

Hopkins' retreat here seemed odd. In addition to violating the Constitution, the cuts reneged on innumerable contractual agreements. I'm old enough to remember a time, not so long ago, when parties went to court to have their contracts enforced. Indeed, some people might even think that our system of private property depends on that enforcement. Evidently, however, Hopkins lacked the stomach to litigate that issue.

Or maybe we were just picking our battles. In contrast to its quick decision to cut Jhpiego loose - along with the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who relied on it - Hopkins did join a lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) challenging the cuts to funding formulas.

Now there's a threat to the University's bottom line. Last year, Hopkins received more $850 million from the NIH: a number that doesn't count funding from the Department of Energy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NASA and untold billions every year from the Defense Department to the University's Applied Physics Lab. The amounts here are eye-watering - and they put Hopkins in acute jeopardy. Federal funding accounts for 87% of our research spending. Tuition revenues pale alongside such sums. The interest our entire endowment pays out doesn't come close.

Losing that money would create an immediate crisis - an existential crisis - for the University. Little surprise that Hopkins has kept its head low.

But what is the broader strategy here? How does Hopkins imagine it will navigate this new world, where government funding is weaponized to punish political enemies?

For the moment, we have no clear answers. President Daniels'last message to the University, sent at the beginning of March, said little.

"We will continue to advocate to our elected representatives," he wrote laconically, perhaps not yet noticing that our elected representatives in Congress have been completely sidelined by the Trump administration's executive actions. We've heard nothing since.

Here is my guess. No doubt our extensive team of lobbyists immediately fanned out across Capitol Hill, explaining to anyone who would listen why the assault on our universities was a form of national suicide. Meanwhile, well-connected trustees have probably worked the back channels. Perhaps a hedge fund mogul here or a private equity titan there has the ear of one of the president's advisors. Maybe Hopkins will be spared!

Meanwhile, the University has begun quietly signaling its willingness to play ball. For example, the Office of the Provost announced a new "collaboration" with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute: an effort that looks disturbingly like Columbia University's coerced commitment to expand "intellectual diversity" by hiring more conservative faculty. Is this initiative an attempt to obey in advance the demands of a belligerent administration in Washington bent on political retribution?

Perhaps such strategic retreats can preserve the University's core business model. University leadership probably believe that USAID cuts were a shame, but didn't fundamentally threaten Hopkins' fiscal stability. In any case,they would largely be borne by poor people in distant countries, while the associated job losses were concentrated among foreign contractors. As for the new affirmative action program for conservative academics: well, what harm can it do?

Facing a crisis of this magnitude, the University had no choice but to attend to its bottom line, keeping losses of federal funds to a sustainable level. Lose a limb but save the patient.

If these speculations do accurately reflect University strategy, there's an obvious problem - something any of the Hopkins scholars who study authoritarian politics could have told our leadership. This isn't how fascist politics work. Left unchallenged, authoritarians come for more until the ability to dissent is crushed.

It's unfortunate that no one has thought to turn to our in-house experts. The knowledge accumulated by our world-class faculty could meaningfully contribute to developing a strategy that would be at once more effective and better reflect the broader Hopkins community.

What, after all, is the endgame of the current approach? Set aside the ethical calculus here, or any notion of what obligations a university might have to a democratic society under severe stress. Even by a purely fiscal reckoning, isn't it obvious that capitulation is counterproductive?

The Trump administration seeks to rule by political power, not by law. Silence only empowers those who are coming after our universities.

As, indeed, it has.

Two weeks ago, we learned that the Trump administration abruptly cancelled the visas of "approximately a dozen" international students. By last week, the number had risen to thirty-seven, with more undoubtedly to come.

We've now arrived at the second stage of the assault on our universities. If the first focused on federal funding, the second focuses on the capricious cancelation of international student visas.

To anyone's knowledge, no Hopkins student has yet been politically targeted. Indeed, University communications claim that there is "no indication" that our students' visas have been revoked for exercising their rights to free expression.

I'm not so sanguine. Perhaps that hasn't happened here, not yet, but it's only a matter of time. We know that the Trump administration has targeted outspoken activists elsewhere. Is there any doubt that these visa revocations are intended to terrify and intimidate: to prevent international students from engaging in Constitutionally protected speech? Who do we imagine is next, once foreign nationals have been muzzled or deported?

Faced with this new assault, silence is no longer an option. Revocation of student visas raises immediate questions the University has no choice but to answer.

Will we keep international students enrolled when their visas are revoked? Will we allow them to continue their studies and their research remotely? Will we ensure that graduate workers whose fellowships require research or teaching do not lose their student status? Answers to these pressing questions will reveal whether Hopkins chooses to actively collaborate with the Trump administration's policies.

Further questions present themselves. Will Hopkins provide legal assistance to our students whose visas have been unfairly and illegally revoked? Will Hopkins support a lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking an injunction to block them from revoking student visas without cause, or from arresting, detaining and deporting international students and faculty? Several other Maryland colleges and universities have backed the lawsuit. Will we?

These and other questions cannot be avoided. Silence has gotten us this far, but it can get us no further. To keep our heads down while our most vulnerable students are plucked away by the capricious exercise of political power is to collaborate in their persecution.

University leadership, trustees: I urge you to initiate a broader consultation about University policy. I suspect you will learn that, in times like these, silence amounts to complicity. Johns Hopkins will either side with lawless power, or stand on the side of students - and the law and Constitution.

We wait, all of us, for the next move.

------

François Furstenberg is a professor of history.