Mount Holyoke students reflect on housing lottery challenges

Photo by Sydney Wiser ’27

Creighton Hall, one of 18 residential halls on Mount Holyoke College’s campus, is home to several Living-Learning Communities and includes many amenities such as air conditioning and a full kitchen.

By Jo Elliott ’28

Staff Writer

Mount Holyoke has a diverse range of housing options, with 18 residential halls and ten non-residence hall apartments for students to be housed in. While each dorm has its own pros and cons, it’s the housing selection lottery that most students have recently had difficulty adjusting to. This year’s housing lottery took place from late March into mid-April.

Kairi Harness ’28, who participated in the housing lottery for the first time this year, described confusion and frustration when it came to the process. “With the whole lottery system, I didn't understand the rules, I didn't know what was happening,” Harness said.

Others, it seems, feel the same way. Another first year, Fajar Amjad ’28, said, “I had very, very limited options that did restrict my choices … I didn't feel like I had a choice at the end of the day.” By the time they could select a room, Amjad noted, they were left with only two dorm options: 1837 Hall and Prospect Hall.

According to Harness, housing selection makes much more sense for incoming students.“The housing process when applying to a new college is easy, so easy. It was so simple, you just filled out the form, you were done,” Harness said.

Rosemary Osafo-Kwaako ’26, a resident advisor for the first-year exclusive MacGregor Hall, added to the discussion about first-year housing, stating that the promotional videos the College posts to YouTube and TikTok about the residence halls are helpful for incoming students. “I do think they're trying well with the YouTube videos and the TikToks,” Osafo-Kwaako said. The purpose of these videos is to prepare the incoming first years for what’s in store, as many of them do not have the opportunity to interact with the dorms before arriving on campus.

Nevertheless, current Mount Holyoke students have experienced issues with finding on-campus housing. “There is a general shortage of rooms that we feel like exists,” Amjad said.

Although most students interviewed did not claim their issues were part of a housing shortage, Amjad noted that, “I do think there are more people present than there are rooms, and I also think that people who require or need more options aren't getting enough, especially people who need accommodations.”

Harness tended to agree with the assessment that student housing issues may be caused by a shortage, stating that, “It feels like you're fitting three people into a space. It feels like the …. newer triple rooms are just what used to be double rooms. They're just shoving a new bed in there to make room.”

Other students agree that there is a housing problem, but do not believe it is due to a shortage. Anha Chaudhry ’28, for instance, said in an email to Mount Holyoke News, “I don't think there is a housing crisis in the sense that there's not enough housing for all of us, but I do feel like there's a bit of an issue with accommodations and students needing singles … I get that there needs to be some sort of strict policy to ensure that not every student is getting their way to a single when others may need it more, but it's really exhausting when I have several evident disabilities and concerns and am still sent into a loop of doubt.”

Moreover, Chaundhry noted, “I think there needs to be a more straightforward method to attain accommodations instead of both facilities not taking responsibility for the first step. There should be a streamline[d] pattern for a student to fill out a form, meet one office, get confirmation from the other, come to a conclusion and get the accommodations they need, be it a single, central campus housing, lower floor rooms, or having ACs and larger appliances.”

Adeyla Hoenck ’28 contributed fact-checking.

SCOTUS amidst the Trump administration: An interview with Danielle Holley

Graphic by Brianna Stockwell ’28

By Liliana Stinson ’27

Contributing Writer

Even before Donald Trump's inauguration as president on Jan. 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States has functioned as a significant political actor. With a few notable exceptions, the nine justices have decided most cases along liberal and conservative ideological lines, and the conservative majority has not shied away from dismantling decades-long precedents in order to pursue a partisan agenda. 

How might the political role of the Supreme Court change in the context of Trump’s second term? To answer this question, Mount Holyoke News sat down with Mount Holyoke College President and legal scholar Danielle Holley, who offered insight into the current landscape of the Supreme Court. 

The first case the Supreme Court has ruled on relating to Trump’s second term executive orders is Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. This case occurred in response to Executive Order 14169, “REEVALUATING AND REALIGNING UNITED STATES FOREIGN AID,” which ordered a 90-day pause on all foreign aid programs. On Feb. 10 and 11, recipients of foreign aid and non-profit organizations issued two lawsuits challenging this order, one of which resulted in this case. 

On March 5, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision empowering a district judge to move forward with his order that the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development must issue payments for work already performed by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and other organizations and corporations. The payments would total nearly $2 billion. Since these organizations and corporations historically receive federal foreign-assistance funding and had completed work before Trump released the executive order, they required these earnings by law.

This decision is notable: By making the executive branch follow the contracts and federal appropriations guidelines set out by Congress, the Supreme Court is upholding a fundamental separation of powers outlined by the Constitution. However, the majority is extremely slim and has only issued an unsigned, one-paragraph opinion, as opposed to the eight-page slashing dissent authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. 

Additionally, in this dissent, Alito indicates that the dissenting justices would have preferred for the Court to officially review the case on its merits, rather than just deciding to approve or deny the government’s request to vacate the judge’s order. 

This is significant, Holley said, as a further review of this case could have implications on the powers of federal judges. “Every district court judge, like we saw with the district court judge in this opinion, has the ability to issue what's called a nationwide injunction,” Holley explained. A nationwide injunction allows judges to block federal policy or orders nationwide. This power has recently become controversial because judges have used it against the Trump administration. “In the previous administration, it was operating in benefit of conservatives. In this administration, it's operating in benefit of liberals,” Holley said. 

“I think what the Supreme Court is struggling with is, if you do not like nationwide injunctions, that can't be a partisan view … If you don't like it for USAID, you [can’t] like it for mifepristone,” Holley continued, noting the injunction District Judge Kacsmaryk issued in 2023 suspending FDA approval of mifepristone, a drug crucial to medical abortion. 

Indeed, this case touches on the increasing politicization of the judiciary, not only because of conservative outrage against the power of liberal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, but also because of the tendency of those on the far-right to punish any judge — or justice — who rules against Trump. 

For example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority decision and allowed the injunction against Trump to go through. After the decision was released, Barrett faced an online barrage from far-right personalities. These attacks included accusing her of being a “DEI hire,” which Holley said indicates the prejudice behind the movement against diversity, equity and inclusion. As Holley described, “When you hear someone say someone is a DEI hire, they're attempting to attack that person on the basis of their race or gender … Amy Coney Barrett is the subject of sexist attacks because she failed to adhere to the party line.” 

The attacks on the judiciary have threatened other justices as well.  In a March 18 post on Truth Social — the far-right social media platform modeled after the website formerly known as Twitter — Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ordered the Trump administration to cease deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act. This is a largely unprecedented attack on the judiciary, which is intended to operate entirely independently from political influences in order to protect the rule of law. 

Indeed, only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached, all related to high crimes and misdemeanors in which the judges broke the law or abused their position. The fact that the president has called for judicial impeachment due to a political disagreement is a shocking breach of civil norms, and even evoked a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. 

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement issued mere hours after Trump’s social media post. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Though it is extremely unlikely that Congress would actually remove federal judges from office, a representative has introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg in the House. 

In response to the growing politicization of the judiciary, Holley said, “We have to fight on every front. So number one, I would encourage people to raise their voices at every opportunity, right, [when] they feel that their First Amendment free speech is being shut down, to petition their government, write to their Congressperson, write to their senator, write to the White House.” 

“The second thing is,” Holley continued, “we have to fight in the courts … because, honestly, much of what the current administration is doing is extralegal, is outside of the rule of law … Everyone in our society must be responsible for following the rule of law. And if they aren't, then we aren’t in a democracy.”

Lastly, Holley advocated for the College’s community to gain a thorough understanding of the norms and limits of government power. “We have to gain more knowledge about what our government [is] authorized to do, because this is a time where we have to push back against government authority. Most of the time we think of the government as our protector. In this case, the government is our oppressor,” Holley said. “One of the features of living in what is supposed to be a democratic institution, is to have no fear in saying our government is wrong, our government is not following the rule of law, our government should be challenged and sanctioned based on what they do, and that's one of the most critical things we can do as people who support democracy at this time.” 

Madeleine Diesl ’28 contributed fact-checking.

Loksi’ Shaali’ opera premieres on the East Coast at MHC

By Jo Elliot ’28

By Jo Elliott ’28

“Loksi’ Shaali’,” the first-ever opera to be sung entirely in a Native American language, premiered on the East Coast in Mount Holyoke’s own Abbey Memorial Chapel on Friday, Feb. 28. The two-act opera is performed in Chickasaw and was created by Chickasaw composer Jerod Impichchaachaaha’ Tate, a revolutionary figure for bringing Native American voices to opera. 

The performance featured Mount Holyoke’s Symphony Orchestra, Glee Club and Chamber Singers and was conducted by Director of Orchestral Studies Tianhui Ng. The opera featured several distinguished singers, including Cristina Maria Castro, Charles Calotta, Kirsten C. Kunkle, Nicole Van Every, Mark Billy and Grant Youngblood. 

The opera takes place approximately a thousand years ago on the ancestral land of the Chickasaw tribe. It opens with a young Chickasaw girl, Loksi' — meaning “Turtle” — who regains confidence in herself after gaining wisdom from her grandmother and Old Turtle. According to a press release on the Mount Holyoke College website, “the young girl learns she must leave home to find her purpose. She sets out on a long woodland journey, returning a cultural hero, enriched by the divine gift of the turtle shell shakers and knowledge of the Chickasaw people’s new homelands.”

The production of the opera started in 2021. Tianhui Ng and the Mount Holyoke Symphony Orchestra received a Mellon Foundation Five College Native American Indigenous Studies Grant, in order to develop the world’s first opera sung entirely in a Native American language. The grant allowed for libretto, piano-vocal and orchestra workshops to occur. In addition, Tate had a semester-long residency with the students to allow for “critical conversations surrounding the performance practice of Native American work.” 

Zoya Agboatwalla ’28 stated, “We have been preparing for the opera almost all semester, even having extra classes to make sure that it was sung in the way that the director and the composer intended. Our preparation extended beyond just learning the music. We studied the story and meaning behind the opera, which deepened our understanding and made the performance more powerful.”

Agboatwalla also mentioned that the main challenge they faced around producing the opera “stemmed from the length of the opera itself. Throughout rehearsals, sections were frequently cut or reintroduced, meaning no two performers had identical scores. This required us to rely heavily on our ears and one another rather than just reading and following a fixed score.”

According to Ainsley Morrison ’25, President of the Mount Holyoke Symphony Orchestra and co-principal violist, “This was not our first time working directly with a composer. The music department and the orchestra frequently commission pieces from composers. However, this was the first time we have had an in-person interface with a composer since the pandemic.” 

“The Mount Holyoke Symphony Orchestra works with the choral forces at least once a year at the Family and Friends performance, and working together is not unusual,” Morrison said. “The scale of this particular performance was unusual, as we were working not only with our fellow student ensembles, but with renowned Native American opera singers from all over the country, and with many local professional singers and instrumentalists.”

The Mount Holyoke Symphony Orchestra has plans to continue collaborating with the Chamber Singers and Glee Club. “The Mount Holyoke Symphony will be performing on April 18 with Han Chen, a professional pianist,” Morrison said. “The orchestra will have our usual collaboration with Glee Club, Chorale, and Chamber Singers at the Family and Friends Concert in the fall.”

Madeline Diesl ’28 contributed fact-checking.