Hilltopics | University Honors Program | Volume 13 Issue 6 | March 2017
Letter from the Editor My friend Kenneth John always thanks me for my “emotional bravery,” and the first four times he said this, I just chuckled nervously, thanked him, and impulsively burst into confused tears. It wasn’t solely because I was grateful for his compliment; it was because I had never really put any thought into what it meant to be vulnerable. Vulnerability was always something weak people displayed, and growing up trying to be a “strong, independent woman” meant that being vulnerable was one of the things I hated about myself. Think about it. It’s crazy to be vulnerable. It goes against every primal instinct to protect oneself. When we choose to be vulnerable, we are purposely choosing to not put our very best foot forward. We’re showing others the messy, nitty-gritty parts of our lives that are nowhere near polished. When we open ourselves up to that extent, we are deliberately making a risky decision hinged on the idea that we think the people we are opening up to will care about our pain or our joy. That is why writing and story-telling are so powerful. When someone writes you a letter, they are intentionally setting aside the time to put pen to paper to inquire about you and share their experiences. If someone writes an article, through their style and tone, they’re indicating how they think and process information. When you stumble
1
upon a poem, you are glimpsing write about, with very little promptat a thought or idea that was so ing from me, give insight into what important to the poet that they felt they value. We’ve curated many the need to create poetry about it. different perspectives and I applaud It might seem dramatic to say our staff for taking the risks they do that our writers are vulnerable in tackling issues about which they when they submit their pieces to care. Their openness is rewarding be read, but anyone who has ever to see and I am always humbled by submitted a piece of work into their energy and commitment. which they’ve put time and effort is familiar with the sense of anxAs always, thanks for reading and iety that comes with letting one’s we’re glad you’re here. work out into the world. Publication can often feel like a lack Terisha Kolencherry of control because once we put Editor in Chief, Hilltopics Hilltopics on the stands, hen we were children we we can’t always explain used to think that when we were our pieces to our read- grown up we would no longer be ers. People ut to grow up is to interpret our vulnerable words how- accept vulnerability o be alive ever they see fit and our is to be vulnerable vulnerabiliadeleine ngle ty might not be accepted. However, we must not wall ourselves up and simply report in monotonous ways about the happenings on campus. Our openness is necessary to build a relationship between our publication and our reader(s?).
“W
,
-
–M
All that being said, I encourage you to think about what each of our talented writers and artists are saying through their work. The various topics they’ve chosen to
.B
.T
L’E
.”
On the Disappearing Horizon of Adulthood By Laura Harvey
“I THINK WHEN YOU’RE YOUNG YOU SHOULD BE A LOT WITH YOURSELF AND YOUR SUFFERINGS. THEN ONE DAY YOU GET OUT WHERE THE SUN SHINES AND THE RAIN RAINS AND THE SNOW SNOWS AND IT ALL COMES TOGETHER.” –DIANA VREELAND
I am twenty-one and a graduating senior, but I’ve never felt younger in my life. I have a job lined up that provides health insurance, and I have an appointment set to talk about a savings account, but last week I woke up with a Welch’s fruit snack melted to my arm. I am not an adult. Anyone who uses “adulting” as a verb, such as myself, is not an adult because it is novel for them to be accomplishing an adult-like task. I occasionally masquerade as one, but I have not actually joined the ranks of this mythic force. They are considering whether or not to allow me into the tribe. What does it take to get into the club? Financial independence? At first glance this seems like the ticket, but there are many adult-type people who will never achieve this. But having the ability to make money and spend it as you please does seem to be part of the picture. Asking your mom if you can have extra money this month to take a trip is the epitome of anti-adult. A job? (A hot topic for every graduating senior.) Yes. But, the ticket to adulthood? No. Sixteen-year-olds have jobs. I don’t necessarily need one of these (unless I want to eat, buy
things, or have an apartment). Sex? If you’re graduating high school, this is definitely the hot-ticket adult experience. Honestly, though, the more adult you get it seems the less sex you have, so maybe this one is a fake-out. If you’ve been on Tinder lately, it is clear why our generation is having less sex than the Baby Boomers did.
…
I emphatically call myself an adult when anyone questions my age. When my older friends smile that condescending smile, I puff up my chest and pronounce myself experienced in the ways of the world. But when my parents ask me if I have called the health insurance company or if I have paid that old parking ticket, I just want to scream that I’m a 5’4” toddler who doesn’t know how to do anything.
grandparents had children. I shudder to think about this. I am still deciding if I should eat meat, what my favorite color is, and if I should try to make it in a creative career or sell out now. I am unresolved, needless to say - a work in progress. In college, we call everything after undergrad the “real world.” What makes undergrad less real? Okay, maybe the endless amounts of failsafes between ourselves and complete ruination. When I was an eighteen-year-old freshman, it felt like the height of adulthood to choose what I wanted to eat when I wanted to eat it, to stay out all night long and not have to tell anyone, and to vote in the presidential election. I was convinced I had reached adulthood. After all, according to our country’s definition, the concept begins at eighteen. I’m only three years older now, but I
I believe it impossible to define an adult by a set of experiences, beliefs, or responsibilities. What I have noticed is that the benchmark for adulthood is stretching further and further into the life of the American millennial. We are loath to reach this status. At my age now, my parents were married to each other and my
2
think of that version of myself with a nauseated fondness for her shocking naiveté. Since freshman year, I have experienced death, crime, protests, social change, drug use, and violence. A lot of things I never thought I would see, to be honest.
seems to me. They can say “no” to things that aren’t for them, they can put off doing what sounds great right now in order to achieve things down the line, and they can get through challenging times without going to pieces.
I think a huge barrier to recognizing ourselves as adults is that the process of growing up is far more liminal than any survey or form would have us believe. You can vote when you’re eighteen. You can drink when you’re twenty-one. But maybe you’re not an adult until you achieve a multi-dimensional independence. Financial independence is great, but what about your emotional adjustment and your ability to make future plans? So-called “real adults” might consult others for advice, but they are the rational choosers in their own lives, it
But there is no single day when you realize you are independent. There’s no party to throw. Adulthood comes on via small challenges. It comes with a lot of firsts, but it also comes in particularly dark midnights where you make the right choice, the responsible one. It comes on in waves at the beginning, and then I imagine that somewhere down the line it becomes a more constant state of being. I think it really sticks when you’re no longer your first thought and priority, when someone else depends on you - whether it’s a child, a spouse,
or an aging parent. I think adulthood is a state of mind that could perhaps be permanently prolonged if one so chose (but having crumbs in your bed at age forty seems wrong somehow).
Play Acting Tribal Warfare By Fairooz Adams
A successful adaption for many social animals is tribalism as a binding force, a trait in which members of a species share a common affinity with their immediate kin. In humanity, however, that radius of trust has spanned ever wider throughout history, progressing from covering merely extended families, to larger tribes, and eventually coming
“sports is to tribal warfare as pornography is to sex” -Jonathan Haidt 3
to include city-states and later nation-states. In the past it has been argued that adaptions such as complex cultures which bound tribes in our species more tightly together enabled Homo sapiens to defeat Homo neanderthalensis in their quest for domination of western Eurasia. Tribalism has been a constant presence throughout human history and can even be seen amongst apes such as chimpanzees, a species which sets up borders, patrols, and sometimes engages in warfare with members of rival tribes. This behavior is so deeply ingrained that people continue to engage in play-act-
ing to relieve their impulse for tribal warfare. As Jonathan Haidt has said, “sports is to tribal warfare as pornography is to sex.” The warlike simulations transcend the games themselves. People apply face paint symbolizing their fealty to the warriors (athletes), cry when a rival tribe subjugates them (losing an important game), and often use the term “we” as though they are personally tied to the sports team. The drum beats of pep rallies and dancers might resemble a tribal ritual prior to a fight. What is the most rational form of tribalism today, then? Humanity is no longer set up in small city-states or warring bands. Yet, real world
conflicts persist. There continues to be real fighting and death, competition for influence and power in the international order. In this sense, sports are little better than video games depicting sports or warfare, because games both virtual and real are in themselves simulations. Perhaps this is why certain popular sports, such as soccer, have a high degree of significance for people in many nations, because they are simulations of one nation conquering the other. There still continues to be a very real need for tribalism in the present day. Superpower competition ended in 1989, but great power competition still exists in rival centers of regional influence around the world. It often seeks to undermine the American leadership that
has stabilized the international system and reduced interstate conflict by keeping regional hegemonies in check. Unlike tribalism in the past, however, today’s tribalism cannot be ethnonationalism, which is corrosive. Ethnonationalism in Europe contributed substantially to both of the world wars. No, today’s responsible nationalism must be civic nationalism, in which people rally behind shared values. As Russian interference in the United States presidential election has proven, the world has yet to enter a post-national phase in which nation-states do not matter. The radius of trust for humanity has thus far grown from clans of 150-strong or so, to states composed of over a billion people. And perhaps because the fear of imminent death and destruction
has never seemed so far removed for many, the only way to satisfy tribalism is via play-acting through sports. Never should we lose sight of the tribe that actually matters for all of us: the United States. The American-led order is not only good for the lives and well-being of all her citizens, but America’s overwhelming power and strength is precisely what makes the world far safer and makes sports seem less trivial in comparison. Declining faith in institutions, a rejection of American national identity, and the dismissal of even civic nationalism is corrosive, a recipe for longterm decline, and indicative of an unstable international order.
Comic Relief By Andrea Del Angel
4
The State of the Arts By Stejara Dinulescu
Our president has suggested, and is still planning on, cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. There are many financial and cultural reasons as to why this does not make sense; for example, the NEA is a mere 0.012% of national spending, so its removal poses a greater loss than any minute likelihood of gain. However, this is not about the federal budget or the economy. This is a direct attack to artists, both personally and communally, and I will not pretend it is anything otherwise.
As an artist in career and mentality, I have fought for my right to exist and create for as long as I can remember. Within my family, any mention of my work is quickly rebutted with pleas and argumentation because my parents are afraid that I will not be able to support myself, let alone a future family. I still remember being forced to change the order of words and sentences in my college application essays, simply because I had put my interests in studio art before my interests in science. When I asked why it mattered, their response was, “It means you love art more than science, and 5
that will hurt your admission.” As my parents are immigrants coming from an ex-communist country geared towards scientific and mathematic production, I can understand their mentality and excuse it.
hard work even more undermined. Instead of moving forward, we will be regressing. The fact that we, as a society, are even considering this means that we are regressing. We take two steps forward just to take eight more steps back.
This social stigma abounds within our generation as well, which is even more hurtful. I have had peers tell me that my major “is so easy” and “Wow, you must have a lot of free time,” and “What you do doesn’t require any thought or effort at all!” I’m tired of smiling politely and answering, “No, you are wrong, my art classes are my hardest classes, and I have taken Dr. Patty’s chemistry class, survived C++, and clawed my way through upper level biology and psychology classes,” or, “I spend more hours in my studio or in the classrooms working than I spend on any other homework for my other two majors combined, and I get less course credit for greater class time.” The worst part: this has happened to me within Meadows as well, among students studying other art forms also trying to make a living with their craft. I have seen friends face discrimination from larger institutions, including SMU itself, because they were studying art and were not thought to be capable enough, even though they were well past qualified.
I have been silent for too long. I am sick of smiling and politely fighting for my right to exist as an artist and a creative alongside the doctors, lawyers, and engineers of this world. I should not have to justify my intelligence or competence.
If the NEA is cut, we will be collateral damage. One of my degrees will be even more worthless, my
This is not merely another article in a campus publication, filled with impersonal facts and analyses.
This is a scream of frustration and a plea for understanding.
On Science and Skepticism By Alec Mason
It appears that in the past few decades another divide has been developing in the United States. This time, however, the divide is not economically or socially based, but rather it encompasses a fundamental conflict between intellectuals in the field of science and laymen. America’s scientific community is one of the most prolific in the world, and its developments have vast impacts on global society. However, from the perspective of some of those untrained in the field the group can seem exclusive and disconnected from reality, which leads to the scientific community and their studies being viewed with skepticism by a significant portion of the populace. Science can be such a polarizer that politicians such as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have run campaigns on the idea of questioning the scientific “socialist agenda” when the discipline tackles topics such as climate change and healthcare. Bachmann even went so far as to make the foolish claim that, “There isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” While the Dedman College biochemistry major in me wants to rant about carbonic acid increasing ocean acidity and the greenhouse effect for the remainder of this article, I will restrain myself for now. The point I want to make here is that when over ninety percent of trained professionals agree on something it is wise for those untrained in the field to at least acknowledge the veracity of their claims. When people will
readily accept the accuracy of the diagnosis of one or two doctors, buy toothpaste based on the testimonies of a dentist in an advertisement, and, dare I say it, accept the word of one local pastor as the word of God, why is it that it takes 97.1% of the nation’s scientists1 to get a mere 50% public acknowledgement2 of the human effect on global climate? So why is scientific consensus so controversial, and when did it become that way? Polls by the Pew Research Center show that views of climate science are largely predictable by partisan and ideological factors, with strong conservatives being most skeptical. While 68% of strong liberals believe that scientists understand very well that Earth’s climate is changing, this number is only 18% for strong conservatives.3 Conservative resistance to science seems to be caused by a mixture of two ideas. The first of which proposes that since conservatives have the largest percentage out of any
ideological group of people who say religion is very important to them (70%),4 an inherent conflict arises out of some people’s view that scientific discoveries are contradictory to their steadfast religious convictions. This clash between religion and science is not new. From Galileo Galilei’s conflicts with the papacy in the 17th century to Bill Nye’s debate with Ken Ham back in 2014, it is easy to see how people can view science as the antithesis of religion. The second idea that causes conservative resistance to science is that politicians often feed upon its quasi-inherent connection to socialism. Many right-wing politicians tend to reject climate science on fiscal grounds, such as when Sarah Palin said that the benefits of CO2 emissions reduction policies are “far outweighed by their economic costs.” While this claim sounds like a noble attempt to save the economy, it literally means that priority is being placed more on cutting costs than
6
saving the very planet that allows the economy to exist in the first place. The unfortunate truth remains that there is no profit to be made that is worth a dying ecosystem. This demonization of science by politicians seems to have no concrete basis for its occurrence, and that leads me to my next observation. There appears to be a feedback loop in the denial of science by politicians and their supporters that is kept alive by one force: lobbyism. According to the Center for Responsive Politics in 2016, 89% of the political contributions from oil and gas companies went to Republicans.5 The largest recipient of these contributions was none other than Texas senator and prominent climate change denier Ted Cruz. The scary part of this is that Cruz currently chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. This means that the same man who has repeatedly rejected the beliefs of the scientific community is the most powerful person in the senate on matters related to science. The oil and gas industry is using politicians as puppets to manipulate conservative voters and government policy, and our planet is going to pay for it.
President Trump recently released his budget proposal for this year and, regardless of whether it passes, it reveals our president’s terrifying priorities in government. The budget proposes many large, damaging cuts to a myriad of government agencies, but the 16.2% cut to the Department of Health and Human Services, the 13.5% cut to the Department of Education, and the 31.4% cut to the Environmental Protection Agency are some of the scariest. While these vital programs are receiving cuts, the Departments of Defense (which already accounts for 54% of discretionary spending) and Homeland Security are getting boosts. This shows that our president would rather cater to the needless and excessive militarization of our nation than ensure that America’s future is preserved through healthcare, research, education, and environmental protection. These should not be partisan or ideological issues. The future of our nation cannot be sacrificed in the interest of cutting costs, and, for the sake of posterity, the denial of scientific consensus must not be allowed to manipulate government policy.
Southern Methodist Springtime By Destiny Rose Murphy
7
Footnotes: 1: James Cook, et al., “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” (May 15, 2013), www.iopscience.iop.org. 2: Brian Kennedy, “Clinton, Trump supporters worlds apart on views of climate change and its scientists,” Pew Research Center, (October 10, 2016), www.pewresearch.org. 3: Cary Funk and Brian Kennedy, “The Politics of Climate,” Pew Research Center, (October 4, 2016), www.pewresearch.org. 4: Pew Research Center for Religion and Public Life, “Religious Landscape Study,” www.pewforum.org. 5: Center for Responsive Politics, “Oil & Gas,” www.opensecrets.org.
Springtime sun brings fresh freshman flowers out all across Dallas Lawn.
New vines stretch between trees like bean-pods
They grow out of the always green grass, dragged up through the dirt by cloudless warmth and midterm stress.
by tightly knotted ropes and carabineers.
suspended
The hammocks bear fruit: Sophomores snooze in their capsules, patiently procrastinating.
Shoot Me Down By Alec Petsche
I was asked not to write about politics, so I’m forced to shift my focus to the only other thing I have any real experience in: being turned down by beautiful men and women. If I could offer everyone interested in dating (but mostly straight men) one piece of advice, it would be this: learn to politely accept a rejection. I ask a lot of people out. Most of them say no. This isn’t really surprising; I’m an average looking guy with no particular charisma beyond being funny and supportive of my partners. No, the surprising thing is that I like getting turned down. I like knowing upfront what is and isn’t on the table. I like knowing I’ve taken the necessary action. I expect to get turned down later today and frankly I’m kind of looking forward to it. Too often, people (mostly men) allow their feelings to grow out of control by building idealized fantasies of someone they barely know. I once decided I was going to marry a girl after sitting behind her on a two-hour flight. If you have never done this, you are a liar. Developing intense feelings for someone before you start seeing them romantically is (and I mean this in the nicest way possible) incredibly stupid. You grow into love with another person; it’s a mutual act. If you’re five steps ahead when you let them know you’re interested then your relationship has a serious problem before it starts. The solution is simple: ask out anyone you want to immediately after you recognize you like the person. People (again, mostly straight men) are horrified of rejection. I really don’t understand this. Do you know what happens when someone rejects you? Nothing. You feel sad for an hour, and then you go get frozen yogurt with your best friend. The only way rejec-
tion can actually hurt you is if you’ve let those feelings fester for too long. If you’ve created a world in your mind before taking the first step to make it real, then rejection becomes an internal apocalypse instead of a mildly uncomfortable conversation. Why? Why do we do this? It’s needlessly painful, not to mention delusional. In real life, the person you like isn’t that special, and frankly neither are you. Stop wasting time and see if (s)he’s interested. If (s) he is, great! If (s)he’s not, nothing in
experimental theatre troupe she was in; I haven’t missed one of their shows since. Four of my closest friends are people that I briefly dated, or people I asked out who then proceeded to turn me down or date me and dump me. People (almost exclusively straight men) constantly complain about being “friend-zoned.” Well, y’all are morons, because the friend zone is awesome; do you know how many friends I have now? Most importantly, I don’t live in constant worry over whether some cute person will share my feelings because I skip that step. I like the guy my friend says I’d be good for? Asked. Wasn’t feeling it. Well, time to do some homework. I think I’d be good with the cute girl in my ethics class? Asked. No thanks. Okay, where am I going for dinner?
the world could matter less than whether or not someone feels like dating you. Attraction is random and stupid; the laws of probability and evolution are not picking on you. Amazing things can happen when you open yourself up to possibilities beyond “I want a relationship with you and nothing else will cut it, so I’m just going to sit on my hands until my feelings explode out of me in an unhealthy way.” Yes, my shoot-from-the-hip asking out policy led me to my first real relationship last summer, but just as important is what I found because I didn’t worry too much about being rejected. There was a girl I tried to ask out in Café 100 who told me about an
At a certain point, it becomes easier to accept rejection than to deal with someone saying yes. When somebody else is shutting a door, that’s easy; you gave it your best shot. When the door stays open and there are infinite opportunities to make stupid mistakes on the other side…well that’s an entirely different rabbit hole and I don’t have time to talk about it. So, to anyone reading this article (but quite especially heterosexual men), go ask out that cute person you’ve had your eye on. (S)he said no? Just say the magic words: “Okay, I just wanted to ask,” and then go do something productive with the hours you won’t waste obsessing. The Young Pope is great, maybe watch that. At least now you know, and you’re still the same cool, valuable person you were a second ago. (S)he said yes? Wow…I don’t really know how to help you there… good luck, kid. You’re gonna need it.
8
The New Digital Divide: Language is the Impediment to Information Access By Arya McCarthy
Within both technologically developed and developing nations, physical, social and economic structures enforce differential access to information. Whether in urban or rural communities, access to communication technology such as the Internet can be highly limited. Further, automated translation tools continue to struggle with low-resource language pairs and morphologically rich languages— those with lots of conjugations and declensions, like German and Arabic. Certain nations are therefore less integrated into global markets and cultural exchange. Particular limitations in access arise from the confluence of language barrier and Internet infrastructure. These block access to published research and general knowledge. Language barriers aren’t going away. English maintains a hegemony over both the Internet and scientific writing, and regional languages remain firmly entrenched. Since attempts at “universal languages” like Esperanto and Interlingua have fallen flat, the next plausible method for facilitating seamless cross-language communication is a technological version of the Babel fish from The Hitchhiker’s Guide: instant text and voice translation by computer. Machine translation (MT) uses machine learning, relying on oodles of parallel text (“bitext”). When there is no economic, legal, or national security incentive to produce massive parallel corpora (like how the EU publishes in all member languages), translation quality suffers. Speakers of languages without these
9
incentives are therefore disadvantaged. As an example, Google and Microsoft’s new, “scarily accurate” neural-network translation models are each only available for translating between eleven languages of the thousands recognized worldwide. Internet access is also variable, both across and within national lines. Still, with cell phones achieving 95% global penetration according to SSI, the binary question of access is outmoded. The new glaring question is bandwidth: Certain access methods limit available content. Connecting through a 56 kbit/s dialup connection doesn’t allow for streaming video; however, it represents more than 2.2 million American subscribers. The social consequence of this diminished information access is a poverty-of-stimulus stimulation, where those without access do not have the ability to rise socially. The futurist and Google natural language expert Ray Kurzweil has predicted an exponential, accelerating-returns increase in information and productivity resulting from advances in technology—leading us to the Singularity, when man transcends biology. As the saying goes, Einstein once said that the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest (an example of an exponential process), so those who are deprived of these technological gains are kept out of the global economy and
fall behind, seemingly irreparably. Put the doom and gloom behind us, and we start looking for solutions. While we can’t guarantee an egalitarian solution to bring everyone to the same level, we can at least tighten the inequality—lowering the Gini index for translation quality. The first solution comes as a book that has been translated into virtually every language, so it provides a lengthy bitext to train on. Plus, with over twenty English editions, its impact is magnified. If you haven’t already sussed it out, this book is the Bible. Missionaries translated it into every tongue they could, and it’s one of our best sources of parallel text for languages without enough web presence for Google to crawl through them. Social media is another tool in global language barriers: it creates network effects that let information transition through polyglots and overcome geographic ties. These are the keys to holding everyone in the churn of technology as we approach the Singularity: full augmentation of our intelligence with technology, a digital neocortex. Because since before our species even walked this planet, that’s what technology has been for: breaking down the barriers of what seems possible.
Colonias: Life on the Mexican-American border By Karen Guan
Life at SMU - and University Park in general - could easily be described as comfortable, privileged, even sheltered. Because we are lucky enough to reside in such an economically developed area we often take our comfort for granted and do not stop to think about those who aren’t as fortunate as us. We city dwellers in prosperous North Texas are even more unlikely to think about, much less be aware of, colonias: the many substandard, unregulated settlements along the Mexican-American border, which are some of the most economically backward regions in the United States. According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the term “colonia” refers to a community in a rural part of the southern border with marginal conditions relating to infrastructure and housing. Examples of such include, but are not limited to, potable water, road systems, and sanitary sewage. Colonias are additionally burdened by a lack of environmental protection from the government, given their incorporated status, as well as lack of access to traditional homeownership financing methods. Colonias are comprised of a predominantly Latinx population, as they
are located along the US-Mexican border. However, contrary to the ideas that our current president may be agitating, colonias are not exactly a hub for “illegals;” 85% of the Latinx population under age 18 are US citizens. It is widely known that the southern border of the US is one of the most economically underdeveloped regions in the entire country. However, if you take into consideration the growing intensification of trade and the strategic, sociopolitical location of the area along the southern border, the debilitating poverty of the colonias may not make much sense. One explanation of this phenomenon is that colonias have been largely neglected by the US government, and attempts to enhance the lives of “colonians” have been largely futile. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The low quality of life in these settlements is exacerbated by growing income inequality and its effects, such as social distance, especially compared to the overall prosperity of the rest of the nation. However, it cannot be said that there haven’t been any efforts made to revitalize the colonias. One notable example of an effort to improve the quality of life in colonias is the idea of offering microcredit, an extension of very small loans, with the ultimate goal of helping families to reach an acceptable level of housing quality. Because there is a lack
of data collected on life in colonias, outreach efforts are most often unfulfilled. Future prospects appear bleak as well. From what you have just read about colonias it is quite obvious that living conditions are pretty substandard, especially in comparison to your residential commons or whatever palatial dwelling in Dallas in which you currently reside. Though there is nothing wrong with being surrounded by the privilege of a school like SMU, as well as the material pleasures of living in perhaps Dallas’ highest-income neighborhood, it is nevertheless important to keep in mind that there are people and places beyond that vary drastically in terms of quality of life. Just remember to keep your mind open to the world outside of the pristine little community that is Southern Methodist University.
10
Staff and Contributors Executives
Editor in Chief............. Terisha Kolencherry Tech and Layout Editor.... Stejara Dinulescu Copy Editors....................Abby Hawthorne .............................. Destiny Rose Murphy ....................................... Andrew Sneed Online Editor...............................Alec Mason Social Media................Destiny Rose Murphy
Contributors
Laura Harvey Stejara Dinulescu Destiny Rose Murphy Arya McCarthy
Images
Cover................................ Camille Aucoin ................................... Stejara Dinulescu Comic............................Andrea Del Angel Find us online at: hilltopicssmu.wordpress.com Or on Facebook: SMU Hilltopics
Fairooz Adams Alec Mason Special thanks to Dr. David Doyle, Alec Petsche Sally Spaniolo, and Camille Aucoin. Karen Guan