Have an idea for a story? M opinions@theotherpress.ca e ‘Every Little Bit Helps’ ¢ The term ‘baby gay’ can be harmful ¢ Why Trump’s tax dodge isn’t the problem ..and more ‘Every Little Bit Helps’ » Why are politicians so unwilling to make big policy decisions for young voters? Craig Allan Staff Writer couple of days ago I was watching TV with my father. A news piece came up that said John Horgan, if elected to be premier in the British Columbia provincial election, would increase the grant program for college students to $4000 a year for undergraduates. I told my dad that I’m always annoyed when politicians do stuff like that. Give bare minimum promises to youth vote issues like this. My father responded with “Every little bit helps,” and that really annoyed me. It annoys me when politicians make policy decisions that seem based on that saying because I don’t believe they would say that to a mother with four kids or a senior citizen in a nursing home, but for young voters it always seems to be the same small changes. lama millennial, and I do vote, but I must say that despite my interest in politics, I don’t care much about voting. I understand its necessity, and I imagine I will always vote (even if that vote might be for a no-chance party out of spite towards a candidate), but I don’t really care for the act of voting. One of the reasons I feel apathetic towards the voting cause is because I don’t feel that any politician really cares about me. My issues never seem to be brought up. I have always had this belief that unless you are over 55 or have children, the government does not care about you. Every election I hear promises of better social security, and “a better Canada for you and your family (meaning parents).” Well, I’m not going to be eligible to claim social security for a while, and I don’t have kids, so what does that do for me? Then there are times where politicians actually do come out with initiatives for things I care about, like college education. But when they do, it is always minor changes to the point of being a “least you can do” half-assed policy decision. For example, in the federal election last year, the federal Liberal party campaign office for Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam candidate Ron McKinnon made the same kind of grant increase promises. When I asked why they weren't doing more, the campaign staffer who I was talking to told me that changing the system was not part of their plans right now. Increasing the grants is nothing; a $4000 grant fora year when SFU’s average semester for an undergraduate is over $10,000 does not go far enough. When it comes to things that help young people like housing, or schooling to get a stable job, it feels like the government just doesn’t care. It’s never enough, and governments never seem to want to go higher than “Every little bit helps.” I think governments are more likely to say that to young voters for their issues than they would to people campaigning for better long-term care, or lower housing taxes. To get more insight on this issue, I asked the BC Green party leader Sonia Furstenau if young people are really disinterested in voting, and what parties need to do to galvanize this group to vote. Furstenau said that there need to be more younger candidates that cater to young voter issues. On the provincial side, she noted that the youngest MLA in the BC Legislature during the last sitting was 35. For this election, her party is running one of the youngest candidates in BC political history: Kate O’Connor, who is going to turn 18 during the election. Furstenau also believes that failed promises lead to an apathetic voting public. What will be interesting to see in the future is how the millennial and Gen Z group feel about voting as they get older. Will they always hold a passive view on the voting, or will there be a change when these groups find themselves in higher seats of power? No one can know, but steps do need to be taken—whether that’s getting people excited about voting at a younger age, or demanding more trust in our political representatives. Considering how politics have been south of the border in the last four years, an apathetic voting population could lead to unfortunate consequences. It's time to re-open post-secondary for those who wish to go » If kids can go back why can’t young adults? Matthew Fraser Opinions Editor t’s been six long months of quarantine. Months of isolation and staring at screens; months where the rotation from bed to desk and back was unbroken and monotonous. Luckily for Canadians in general and BC residents in particular, our containment efforts have mostly paid off; according to CBC news, the province conducted over 10,000 coronavirus tests over a 24-hour period at the start of October and recorded a less than one percent positivity ratio. Given that public schools have re-opened these numbers should give the wider population confidence that normal life will return. The question for college and university students becomes when will we enjoy in-person lectures? Despite being older and more prepared to socially distance than younger children, post-secondary students have been cut out from the return to normalcy, but why should we be? The past few months have forced professors to adapt teaching to a solely online format including pre-recorded or live video lectures and a paperless assignment system. Given that this has worked thus far, it should not bea massive leap for professors to live stream in classrooms or pre-record for those who feel the need to stay at home. Though Blackboard’s webcam integration is not strong, Zoom shows much better functionality for this. And given that assignment submissions and group work have been relegated to online file exchanges, there should be no problem continuing that trend. For professors who are compromised and need to stay isolated, maintaining the current synchronous standard would be fine. In the CBC article mentioned above, the author highlighted provinces where data has divided coronavirus positive individuals by age. Granted, the cut-off shown is for 20 years of age but given that provincial deaths have stayed under 300 and that overall positive tests have shown a slow but steady decline, students who want to return to a more traditional school format should have the option. Indeed, if the point of the past few months of isolation was to reign in the virus, we have achieved that goal and should soon be reaping the benefits. The past decade has seen an evolving conversation on mental health, particularly amongst youth. Given that that conversation has involved discussing the negative effects of social isolation, it’s only a matter of time before the mass containment of post-secondary students forces us to question the mental health effects. And it’s not just students who have felt the effects of isolation, a number of professors have spoken about it openly and a few of my professors have begged students to use webcams when possible to avoid the dehumanizing effects of talking to a screen. Since we have long known that humans are social creatures and that the UN considers prolonged ° N ° aD o c as ° 3 o c 5 2 9° 2 8 xo 1 solitary confinement to be torture, it is certainly not wrong to at least question how much mental health damage we have done to ourselves by not easing our measures where possible. I have argued previously about those who foolishly refused any quarantine measures, and I certainly stand behind my opinions then. The point was to reign in the virus and reorient ourselves to a world as close to normal as possible. If quarantine was our labor, restoring human contact should be our fruits. Knowing full well that young adults and other college age students can adapt to the new circumstances, we should be willing and able to recontinue our lives.