Tollywood film RRR’s global recognition invites critique

Signage at the Golden Globe Awards. Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons, Peter Dutton.

By Jahnavi Pradeep ’23 & Kaveri Pillai ’23 

Opinion Editors

In Tollywood’s fictionalized period film “RRR,” hero Alluri Sitarama Raju turns to a British colonizer during a party to ask, “Not salsa, not flamenco, my brother … do you know Naatu?” When the man bewilderedly fumbles, “What is Naatu?” Raju and fellow hero Komaran Bheem break into song and dance, educating their surrounding British crowd on Naatu, or Indian dance, through their coordinated grooves matched to the energetic beat of their Telugu lyrics. 

The dance number, aptly titled “Naatu Naatu,” has proceeded to garner global recognition, winning a 2023 Global Globe Award in the best original song category and beating the competing songs, Rihanna’s “Lift Me Up,” Lady Gaga and BloodPop’s “Hold My Hand,” Roeben Katz and Guillermo del Toro’s “Ciao Papa” and Taylor Swift’s “Carolina.”  

The Golden Globes were televised on Jan. 10, 2023, to audiences across the world to celebrate the excellence of television and films produced in 2022. After its problematic history of lacking diversity and inclusion, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s acknowledgment of the problem was evident at the ceremony. 

This year’s Golden Globes saw monumental wins for people of color, with movies like “Everything Everywhere All At Once” and television shows such as “Abbott Elementary” carving spaces for non-white-centric content and recognition in media. The HFPA also strived to go beyond the United States’ contribution to film and television with countries worldwide receiving a nod of approval from the academy. 

“Naatu Naatu” and its movie, “RRR,” have found a spot in this marketplace. The song’s Golden Globe Award is accompanied by a list of accompanying accolades for “RRR.” Among others, the film was also nominated in the Golden Globes’ best non-English language film category and for Critic’s Choice Awards in the categories of best picture, best director, best visual effects, best foreign language film and best song, winning in the last two of these categories. “Naatu Naatu” has also been nominated in the best achievement in music written for motion pictures (original song) category for the upcoming 2023 Academy Awards, making it the first Indian feature film to be nominated in a category other than best international film. Furthermore, “RRR” was touted by the Hollywood Reporter to be one of the highest-grossing Telugu-language films and one of the most streamed Indian films ever on Netflix.

At first glance, “Naatu Naatu” and “RRR’s” global recognition is a welcome celebration that acknowledges the scope of Indian cinema beyond the seemingly more familiar Bollywood industry. Having South Indian roots ourselves, we have noticed how South Indian culture is often perceived as embarrassing and uncivilized. South Indian films are similarly ridiculed for their cringe-worthy content, even within South Asia. Herein, the win for “Naatu Naatu” felt like a triumph for India’s diversity of language and culture. 

Yet, our joy over representation is accompanied by critique. “Naatu Naatu’s” win and “RRR’s” popularity on an international platform, while exciting on the surface, raises concern as to what qualifies an Indian film for global recognition. 

The song and film fault in prioritizing whiteness over creating a space for authentic Indian representation. Its reception then emboldens the obvious performative move by the West — here the HFPA — to represent for representation’s sake, a model that caters to the familiarities of Western audiences over choosing the best of Indian cinema and representation of its people. 

“RRR,” short for Rise, Roar, Revolt, is a 2022 Tollywood, or Telugu-language, film directed by S.S. Rajamouli set in 1920s colonial India. The action-packed epic follows a fictionalized account of two real freedom fighters, Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem, the dance experts from “Naatu Naatu,” as they join hands to revolt against the colonial British rule of the time. 

Riddled with Hindu nationalist and mythological themes, the film explores a narrative chronicling brotherhood and unity amongst Indians during colonial rule. “Naatu Naatu” echoes the crux of the film’s themes of standing up to colonial oppression. When Raju and Bheem attend a party primarily populated by the British, one of the men, motivated by jealousy over Bheem’s courtship of one of the white women, ridicules Bheem for his brownness. 

He mockingly asks his fellow colonizers, “What do [Indians] know about art? About finesse? About dance?” He then shows off his own moves in tango, swing, flamenco and salsa, pointing out the brown man’s lack of access to this culture. However, Raju and Bheem are undeterred and join forces to show how “naatu,” the Indian dance, is not inferior. The two men are able to stand up for their culture and push back against the colonizers’ mistreatment of Indian culture. Their dances soon infect the whole crowd of Britishers, who begin dancing along with them. Raju and Bheem are successful in correcting a bias in the colonizer on Indian “finesse” as well as culture, art and dance. 

The song seems to champion Indian culture and challenge its ridicule by the colonizer; there in itself is the problem. “Naatu Naatu” is still a song obsessed with the Western audience and fixing their misconceptions of what it means to be Indian. The British men are prevented by their female counterparts from stopping Raju and Bheem’s dance, and the enthusiastic women take part in the revelry. 

Herein, a power dynamic is immediately established, wherein white approval forms an integral part of the two men’s celebration of their culture. While chronicling the anguish of colonial India, the film’s ability to exist globally then also establishes how there needs to be white presence on screen for it to become globally relevant. However, it is not the duty of the Indian film to coddle Western audiences, especially their former colonizer, and spoon-feed them respect and decency toward their culture. 

In an article for Times of India, Bharti Dubey and Almas Mirza discuss “Naatu Naatu’s” global success, owing it to how the song was “specifically written to build the emotions and propel the story and the narrative of the film forward.” Contextualizing “Naatu Naatu” in the film strengthens how this internationally acclaimed piece of art merely scratches the surface of the topics it attempts to cover and really does forget about doing right by its characters. 

“RRR” is a film that showcases Indians in reductive portrayals to favor the cinematic experience. For example, Komaram Bheem, one of its two central characters, is a Gond Adivasi. He is first introduced in a jungle setting, pouring blood over himself and fighting a tiger somewhere in the Adilabad district of Hyderabad. The Gond tribals are immediately associated with animalistic tendencies, reinforcing long-standing stereotypes about tribal populations. 

What makes this even more harmful is that Bheem is a fictionalized version of an actual historical figure with living family. While the film does establish itself as a fictionalized account, Mohan Guruswamy aptly points out in an article for LiveWire how this is still dangerous: “When you appropriate the lives and personalities of two genuine heroes for a tawdry commercial excess, it doesn’t absolve the makers of distortion.” 

“RRR” succeeds in caricaturing the real-life accounts of its two revolutionaries and the communities to which they belong. What becomes a priority is using the heroism of the South Indian cinematic experience to simultaneously correct and placate the West. Any real simmering colonial discontent, as demonstrated in the song alone, is shoved under the carpet, as we see the two main characters surrounded by the English upper class as they entertain them with their skillful dance steps and catchy music. 

Award ceremonies must do better than capitalize on films like “RRR.” What makes “Naatu Naatu’s” Golden Globe win seem even more performative is the recent commercial success and market growth of the Tollywood industry. It then appears as if the song’s win is a dual attempt by the award ceremony to absolve their historic whiteness crisis as well as tap into a new profitable market. 

“RRR” and “Naatu Naatu” are not the best that India has to offer. Their nominations echo a superficial celebration of a film that reifies regressive tropes and calls for more critical choices on what films we choose to celebrate.

‘the Crown’ Reflects Larger Issue of Conservative Misrepresentation

By Kaveri Pillai ’23

Staff Writer

Binge-watching media content has become a household norm during the lockdown, and with the much-needed time off for Thanksgiving break, many people got the opportunity to watch the latest season of the Netflix series “The Crown.” Season Four, the last season for the Olivia Coleman-headed cast, welcomes two iconic women of the ’70s: Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Lady Diana Spencer. Needless to say, I had prepared myself for a week of endless drama and shocking revelations about the British royal family. However, after days of watching “The Crown,” one thing stood out. While the mistreatment of Lady Diana as a member of the royal family has been widely publicized for decades now, the negative representation of Thatcher and the failure of her tenure is stressed in the course of the 10-episode season. This rather skewed representation of the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom reveals a dark truth about the media: Conservative politics are hardly ever tolerated in TV shows and movies. Even if right-wing politics are showcased in this form of media, it is done poorly and in a way that undermines the entire conservative ideology. 

 The lack of representation of conservative politics is harmful to the public. Because people rely on works of fiction for the truth about our reality, shows like “The Crown” have a moral responsibility to represent the truth. The creator of the show, Peter Morgan, has never denied taking artistic license when it comes to portraying the world’s most famous royal family while simultaneously emphasizing his devotion toward getting some of the facts right. Nevertheless, getting Lady Diana’s iconic wedding dress and Queen Elizabeth II’s corgis right cannot compensate for bending the historical and political truth Morgan is responsible for portraying.

For many of the viewers, my grandparents included, the 1970s and 80s are decades that they vividly remember. The Falkland War in 1982 and the Right to Buy Housing Act of 1980 are etched into the minds of the people who lived in the U.K. at that time. The fifth episode of season four is completely devoted to the impact of Thatcher’s policies and the massive increase in unemployment, something that seems unusual for a drama like “The Crown.” 

After years of showcasing the intricacies of the royal family structure, “The Crown” detoured while sensationalizing Thatcher’s reign. The episode narrates the true story of a Buckingham Palace intruder Michael Fagan who wishes to speak to the queen in order to voice his concerns about the deteriorating country under Thatcher’s rule. While this incident did occur, the representation of the bureaucracy and the government’s inefficiency was selectively portrayed to undermine the work Thatcher did for the U.K. The Right to Buy Act successfully allowed tenants to buy the council houses at a large discount, increasing the national homeownership rate by 15 percent, yet the scenes in the show focused solely on citizens of lower incomes living in dilapidated council houses. A noble endeavor is undermined when Thatcher’s name is dragged through the mud. 

In November, Vulture noted that Gillian Anderson’s portrayal of Thatcher in the show reflected the animosity toward the prime minister’s conservatism as well. The over-the-top accent work went beyond mimicry or character impersonation — it presented a caricature of Thatcher to a 21st-century audience that showed the Iron Lady as rude, uptight and hated by many. 

 Political analysts have countlessly voiced criticism regarding Thatcher’s administration, which is understandable when one analyzes the populism that surrounded her campaign. However, movies like “Vice,” which portrayed Christian Bale and Sam Rockwell as Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, respectively, echo the same liberal bias the film industry consciously perpetuates. By glamorizing Cheney and Bush’s row with alcoholism and their post-9/11 conflict with the Middle East out of proportion, the film’s creators dangerously create an image for the public that conservative politics is a nasty business. 

 The biased reporting of politics threatens the integrity of fictional representation and media commitment to showing the truth. This liberal-minded interpretation of politics has unfortunately seeped into news outlets as well, with a Gallup poll finding that 66 percent of Americans think the news does a bad job of separating factual reporting from opinion. Various news outlets, like The Washington Post, discuss Obama’s presidency as if his worst controversy was a tan suit, rather than the impact of some of his detrimental programs like Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed for a dangerous amount of firearms sales. Headlines like these highlight the media’s favoritism when it comes to liberals. 

 Thatcher is just one political leader who has been reduced to an ineffective and ruthless woman by the film industry, showcasing that the improper portrayal of conservative political leaders across many media forms is a larger issue. With this misguided motive to homogenize politics and to make every issue a partisan issue, we are being anything but democratic and undermining the achievements of leaders like President Abraham Lincoln and President Ronald Reagan who helped the country as conservative leaders. 

The last two seasons of “The Crown” can only depict the fresher political wounds the U.K. has had to bear, and the public anticipates the portrayal of national issues like the London bombing attacks and Brexit. One can only hope that truth prevails and conservatism is given a second chance. 

Mispronunciation of Names Harms an Individual's Sense of Individuality

Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ‘22

By Kaveri Pillai ’23

Staff Writer

With over 7 billion people engaging with approximately 7,000 languages, the world we live in is becoming more diverse. Differences in faith, religion and socioeconomic status create a sense of organic solidarity in which every individual on Earth has a unique role to play. The duty to unite and establish harmony in this pool of heterogeneity comes with an enormous amount of responsibility.

             It is inevitable that, with so much variety, one starts to question their authentic self. Genetic composition, family and names — these three elements help determine one’s personal history and co-constitute one another. The name-giving process has deep roots in culture and self-identity. Unfortunately, with the rise of globalization and this incessant need to create uniformity, we are losing the authenticity of names, especially the proper ways to pronounce them. 

With a myriad of ethnicities worldwide, it is understandable that one cannot attain knowledge of every group and every culture. However, this cannot be used to justify the sheer ignorance that is present while attempting to understand the importance of names. The Namkaran ceremony in Hindu rituals is a symbol of the celebration of birth with the name-giving tradition. Astrological charts are aligned to produce a name so prosperous that it is a gift from God to the child who is about to take their first steps into the world. So when Republican Senator David Perdue intentionally mispronounced Vice President-elect Kamala Harris’ name, he didn’t just manage to show to the world how deeply immersed he is in his Anglicized racism — he robbed Harris of her identity. 

By adding the culturally deteriorating phrase, “I don’t know. Whatever,” to get a few cheap laughs from the political rally, Perdue diminished the value of a Namkaran ceremony in which the name given to the child represents the auspicious nature of their arrival and how prosperous their journey and identity will be. 

This particular example from last month echoes the historical Western ideal of accepted names, which we still follow today. What might have started with the wave of colonization and the degradation of people as slaves has slowly transitioned into the 21st century McDonaldization realm in which Starbucks will invariably print “Karen” on my coffee cup. It’s not just the pure laziness of refusing to improve or be receptive that bothers thousands of people, but that this belief of “usual” and “unusual” names is so deeply-rooted in a majority of people that raises concerns. 

Colonization marked the plundering of resources, manpower and even native identity. Pre Emancipation, enslaved Africans were given names by slave owners in the United States that were supposedly easier to pronounce and identified them as slaves. Indian workers pre-independence were given first names recorded in public records to reaffirm their status as people who didn’t even have the right to keep their own names. This transition from mispronouncing given names to completely obliterating them has repercussions in today’s world, too. 

Xiaohui Xu ’24 said, “As a Chinese [person], there is a reason why I use an English name instead of my given Chinese name. I know it’s hard for English speakers to pronounce the Chinese name right since the ‘x’ phonetic doesn’t exist in the English language. For the sake of convenience, I’ve decided that for the school[’s] purposes, I will use ‘Amanda,’ which is my English name.” 

Moreover, not putting effort into accurately pronouncing names is not a problem solely faced on an international level. Saee Chitale ’22 said, “All my life, I’ve struggled with people back at home pronouncing my name improperly. Every time a person has read out a list of people and have paused, it has invariably been my name that has created this confusion.” Sadly, the issue of mispronunciation reinforces the Western idea of “normal” names as the uniform setting that all ethnic groups refer to, regardless of where you are from. 

Often, children of nursery school age in countries like India use names like “Sam” and “Molly” while writing about villagers in their country. While this might seem to be a result of immaturity or even innocence, it is important to acknowledge that this idea of “accepted” names creeps into children’s thinking from an early age. This standard diminishes the stories and even the existence of people who simply don’t operate in the restricted Western world. 

Mount Holyoke College’s implementation of name recordings on Moodle, our primary academic platform, helps tackle the problem of name pronunciation. It allows professors and students the opportunity to respect others by addressing them accurately. While this might be a small step toward shattering the power dynamic that dictates what is or is not accepted, the world needs to become more aware of cultures that go beyond their narrow circle of traditions to fulfill that responsibility of creating harmony. 

Laws Protecting Indigenous Sovereignty Are Toothless

By Kaveri Pillai ’23

Staff Writer

Nobody is above the law. 

This idea, shared by many democratic countries, creates credibility that the legislative arm of the government embodies. In democracies with growing populations like India and the U.S., it is the codified law that holds sanctity together. When someone is involved in breaking the law, they are rightfully persecuted. Yet there are certain social groups, specifically Indigenous peoples, that miss out on these fundamental rights. 

Indigenous groups worldwide do not benefit from the promise of justice. A new wave of activism seems to have engulfed the larger public when it comes to awareness and campaigning for Indigenous rights. The divide that was created between the people of today and the people who simply do not fit in, often seen as the “other,” is commonly traced back to the colonizers and their vicious journey of pillage and plunder. 18th century India might have fought against the British before our tryst with destiny, but the “divide and rule” policy that they implemented is something the government has to deal with today. 

 The 1979 Mandal Commission signed by the then-Prime Minister of India Morarji Desai was one of the few steps taken to formally identify the “socially or educationally backward” classes. Initially what might have been seen as a monumental constitutional right for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the Indian subcontinent,  — the protests regarding reservation of seats in universities and civil service job posts are — is what made this social movement for Indian Indigenous groups a rather turbulent one. 

This first step toward justice laid the foundation for various Indian activists who challenge the myopic legislation and the unfair execution of the same. However, this wave of activism gets diminished when confronted by the oppressive national government. Since 2018, 16 activists who have been lobbying for Adivasis, the native tribes, have been arrested under the pretense of belonging to the radical left Naxal group. The recent arrest of a Jesuit priest, Father Stan Swamy, further ignites the flame of intolerance that has been fueled by the right-wing government. 

Swamy, who has been a beacon of hope for the tribal community in the state of Jharkhand, has spent 30 years of life-fighting for the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which is supposed to grant free land and autonomy to the Indigenous groups of India. A believer in leveling out the scales and bringing peace to the ostracized, Swamy has also tried to advocate for native land for the creation of small and big industries. 

Coloring a Christian priest’s act of service and goodness as a threat to the purity of Hinduism is just the first tactic used by the not-so-secular ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. By labeling Swam a “Maoist,” the government has successfully shown the country and the world that India will never truly welcome Indigenous peoples as Indians. The irony that the ones who were colonized are now playing the role of the colonizer is something that unfortunately goes beyond national borders.

The United States has established its global hegemonic status as the leader of the free world despite denying its own citizens freedoms for political reasons. The tales of the first few American presidents and the botched-up narrative of history reify this long-standing animosity white Anglo-Saxon Protestants have regarding Indigenous peoples. This connection between native identity and native land echoes the need for tribal sovereignty, self-governance and legitimate autonomous rule that was earlier promised by the United States Supreme Court in the McGrit v. Oklahoma case in July. 

However, like all power-hungry government bodies, the Trump administration gave the Environmental Protection Agency full access to the once-promised independent Muscogee Creek region of Oklahoma in October. Under nefarious acts like the Toxic Substances Control Act, which can, in a stupendous change of events, overrule a Supreme Court hearing, hazardous waste and toxic air pollutants can be discarded into this preserved land. What the government fails to realize is that this genocidal move does not only threaten the natives’ access to clean water or even a sense of personal land, but also normalizes the fact that Indigenous land has no meaning to a 21st-century society, and the people inhabiting this land are seen as anything but human. 

The separate colonial contexts of both India and the United States include different yet similar problems ranging from slavery to economic suppression. However, what seems to be a constant is the ill-treatment toward Indigenous groups and the legislation that is passed by these “democratic” countries, which creates a divide between national citizens and native peoples. 

The world we now live in revolves around money and political gain. In this fight to achieve absolute power, the Indigenous population has been conveniently left out. This stifling nature of governmental bodies will soon enough crush the spirit that drives such groups and will reduce ethnic history to forgotten anecdotes that will be dominated by the spoils of oppressive modern states.

Social Media Filters Harm Young Girls by Reinforcing Beauty Standards

Graphic by Trinity Kendrick ‘21

By Kaveri Pillai ’23

Staff Writer

In 2015, Snapchat changed the way we looked at ourselves, literally and metaphorically. Its revolutionary camera feature Lenses allows users to edit their photographs in real-time. Festive backgrounds, animal and beautification filters have crept into our picture-taking routines, and the good old DSLR seems to have lost its magic. And so the question becomes: What is it about a camera filter that makes it so attractive to people? 

3.96 billion people use social media, and it has become particularly pervasive among young people. 73 percent of Generation Z adults aged 18-23 are active Instagram users, and 63 percent of the same demographic are active Snapchat users. With such a young demographic being sucked into this sphere of virtual reality, the scrutiny toward social media has been increasing over the past two decades. The creation of Lenses, which alter people’s faces, allowing them to attain a certain look, have reified toxic societal expectations and norms that are targeted toward young girls. 

These filters appeal to those who want to look conventionally attractive. The homogenization of beauty that correlates to the standardization of one type of perfection is unfortunately enforced upon many people who don’t necessarily align themselves with this restrictive canon. The “western ideal” highlights the prevalence of neo-colonialism in the 21st century, and leaves women of color like myself feeling that they need to change to be beautiful. The Instagram filter that glamorizes freckles, blue eyes and blonde hair might seem petty in this fight to accept and appreciate diversity. However, labeling such features as symbols of feminine perfection champions an archaic form of racial superiority and alienates a handful of social groups who are seen to be the antithesis to this regressive norm of beauty. 

By marketing these specific facial features as the ones that personify beauty, the commodification of biological characteristics inevitably produces issues of self-esteem and low confidence in young girls. The oppressive nature of western standards of beauty are reminiscent of the obsession colonizers had with curtailing native culture and anything that appeared to be tangential to their set normative expectations. 

Power shapes the gendered notion of beauty as well. The filter effects of freakishly pore-less cheeks and over-the-top doe eyes make women look like caricatures of young, unadulterated purity. The constant need to infantilize women echoes the sentiment shared with those who find it imperative to diminish women as subordinates. By equating this “childish” beauty to the facade of naive, weak and immature women being accepted and appreciated, the system succeeds at reifying the idea of perfect women being treated like infants. The “young girl” filters rob women of adulthood and diminish them to a social group that is stagnant in this race of growth — once again leaving a vulnerable and marginalized group behind when it comes to creating a universal set of expectations. 

The filters that seem to give every person unnecessary chin tucks and nose jobs hammer an idea in the minds of young girls that what they look like right now is anything but perfect. The constant interfering with one’s natural body echoes the body image issue that is rampant among young people and pushes social media users to go down this dark route of treacherous surgeries and constant cynicism regarding their bodies. 

The hyper-sexualization of women of color appears to contrast the white ideal of perfection that still manages to alienate groups as “exotic” and “abnormal.” As Alizeh Azhar ’23 says, “These dark skin tone filters really do a lot of damage to young brown girls who want to achieve this stature of normalcy when they are being targeted for looking different.”

 As I go through these filters now, I can’t stop myself from thinking about my 13-year-old sister who is being directed by social media to look a certain way in order to be accepted by the world. This toxic wave of artificial appearance has engulfed an entire age group, and it is important to challenge the discourse that surrounds the approval of such ideals of perfection to ensure that the pedagogy that exists regarding beauty standards is flipped. 

Mount Holyoke Virtual Events Lack Community Inclusion and Cohesion

By Kaveri Pillai ’23

Staff Writer 

On Sept. 30, Mount Holyoke announced that Mountain Day 2020 would take place during the fall break between the two modules, a divergence from the tradition’s usual scheduled date sometime during class time in the first semester. Under normal circumstances, the announcement of Mountain Day would’ve ignited a flame of rejoicing and celebration. However, this year, student responses ranged from confusion to disappointment  

A virtual Mountain Day continues to push the boundaries of our new expectations regarding school events, and one big question remains: Will replicating these long-established traditions online result in a failure to create an in-person feel? Should Mount Holyoke adapt to this online setting and create more suitable traditions? Most importantly, can one leave out traditions like Mountain Day and still create the sense of belonging students crave right now? 

 From “It’s Mountain Day!” chants in the hallowed hallways of the Community Center to the long lines that lead up to the white shuttles, there’s more to Mountain Day than trekking up Skinner State Park. The feeling of waking up in the morning and having brunch with friends, followed by eating ice cream and pie on the summit while taking beautiful pictures, goes beyond just documenting our memories — we get to live this experience. With this event going completely online, it is fair to question what will happen to these experiences. The COVID-19 restrictions globally don’t allow most students to step outside their house, let alone to climb a mountain. 

The College seems to think that replacing the actual hiking with mountain documentaries and festive Zoom backgrounds can still create a sense of community, but students have their doubts. Shreya Nair ’22 said, “As an international student, the thought of going on Zoom for Mountain Day is not exciting at all, it just reminds me that I’m not on campus.” This comment echoes a shared sentiment among students: fear of not replicating the joy and excitement of actual Mountain Day, compounded by missing out on breaking in new winter shoes and scarves, not to mention the chance to miss classes. 

 Mountain Day is such a treasured event because it gives students a much-needed break from the academic workload that starts to intensify around mid-semester. Given the shift from the traditional semester system this year, it is understandable why the College decided to keep Mountain Day during the intermission between Module 1 and Module 2. The module system requires academic rigor and is constrained by time; however, this time allocation for Mountain Day led to an exponential decrease in the appeal of the event. With no one missing any class this year, it can be assumed that many students won’t tune in to the online celebration. 

 Mountain Day isn’t the only tradition being undermined due to its virtual celebration status. Other Mount Holyoke traditions and webinars are being negatively affected by the lack of in-person elements. M&Cs, a cherished tradition among all students on campus, is one of them. The entire appeal of a tradition like M&Cs is to allow students to take a break from their hectic academic and nonacademic responsibilities and enjoy the childhood joy of having late-night milk and cookies in dorm common rooms with friends. I remember the many nights I spent in MacGregor Hall pulling all-nighters for research papers and finding comfort in the fact that I could take a break and go to the ground floor if I wanted a snack. Virtual M&Cs defeats the purpose of this tradition. Moreover, like many other Mount Holyoke events, virtual M&Cs fails to include international students and blatantly homogenizes the applicability of Eastern Standard Time. Mount Holyoke administration should understand that 8 p.m. in South Hadley is 4 a.m. in countries in South Asia, which forces students to make a decision between sleeping at a normal local time or conforming to this facade of inclusion and community with cookies and milk from their own kitchen. 

Ava Healy ’24 understands the struggles of making friends and fitting in during her first year at MHC. “I work a lot outside of school and I'm afraid that I might miss the online events,” Healy said, further highlighting the problem with these synchronous events and the lack of participation that comes with them. 

 Isshita Fauzdar ’23 said, “As times change, MoHo should modify their traditions accordingly. Replacing Mountain Day with something more practical like a virtual indoor activity makes more sense.” 

It is important to acknowledge this need to create a community off-campus now more than ever. With students all across the globe, altering traditions to fit our new circumstances in an online platform would help unite students. It might be best to designate events like Mountain Day or M&Cs as on-campus activities and instead create new ones that can only be done virtually. The sense of belonging and the creation of a tight-knit community that new virtual events would create is part of what makes Mount Holyoke so inclusive. It would be a shame if we lost that due to the pandemic.