Does this campaign meet the TIERS requirements?
I don’t think it fully does. The issue of racism is very real and urgent, but it’s framed too broadly. There’s no clear target, and without specific demands, people aren’t sure how to plug in or who the pressure should go on.

How would I improve this campaign?
If it were me, I’d sharpen the focus. Instead of just saying “fight racism,” I’d pick something concrete, such as like demanding the university hire more faculty of color or create an independent review board for discrimination complaints. That way, students (and allies) know exactly what we’re fighting for, and there’s a clear win we can organize around.

2. Howard University College Dems & Bathroom Signs

Does this campaign meet the TIERS requirements?

Kind of. I think the issue seems too narrow compared to what students are passionate about. From what I’ve read, most freshmen don’t see bathroom signs as a top priority, especially with ICE active on campus and students worrying about housing and policing. Engagement is low because the issue doesn’t match the moment.

How would I improve this campaign?
If I were in their shoes, I’d either pivot completely to the ICE issue — which clearly has energy and urgency — or reframe the bathroom campaign as part of a bigger push for an inclusive and safe campus. That could include gender-inclusive bathrooms and tackling affordability and safety. That way, more students would see themselves in the fight.

3. Santa Clara Community College Dems & Housing

Does this campaign meet the TIERS requirements?
Not really. The target (state legislature) feels too far away, and while the issue is important, it’s not directly connected to students’ daily struggles. The leaders are clearly passionate, but classmates don’t feel the urgency because the policy is too technical and abstract.

How would I improve this campaign?
If I were organizing here, I’d start by localizing the issue. Push for something students can feel — like lower dorm costs, more emergency housing options, or stronger partnerships with local landlords. Then, I’d link that fight to the bigger state bill, so people see the connection. That way, the campaign feels winnable and personal, but also tied to systemic change.

How to Start a successful Campaign

1 Analyzing issues and advocate talks in the community or university to find solutions.

2 be a motivate speaker in which influence the mases of people that need the hope and sympathy to the people.

3 Organization and Strategy there are very important in which encourage the sense of political activism unified the youth and people.

4 very importantly before the three steps advocate for yourself in which you have the power and capacity to demonstrate your abilities and care for the community in which you are part of and that you represent.

• Time-bound: their messaging with “improving culture in the long-run” is super vague. There are no measurable results and there is no way for long-term measurable results to take place. So to conclude, it fails this test. 

• Inspiring/energizing: This measurement aims to inspire many students to be able to take action right away. So for many students its something that resonates deeply, which makes it pass our test. 

• Relevant: this is a observable thing that occurs on the campus. Yes, Georgia Tech does struggle with racism, so it passes the test on this front aswell. 

• Specific: its not super specific at all, and it leaves leaders and allies completely lost. So it fails this test. 

How do we improve this? 

• We need to campaign on an extremely direct issue. The more specific the issue is, the better. How are some ways we can do this? Making DEIJ trainings for staff, and making a office that addresses biases staffed with BIPOC. We also need to ensure that its held by a timeline, which means we need to demand policy implementation by the end of the academic year, which is measure that can be made by student government to hold faculty accountable. We need to clarify to faculty which information campaigns we are targeting. 

2). Howard University College Dems and Bathroom Signs

• Time-bound: this group wants this by the end of the year, so therefore they are time-bound. 

• Inspiring/energing: this isn’t very inspiring and many students feel like this isn’t a huge priority. Therefore it fails this test. 

• Relevant: this tends to be a mixed response. Especially when it only appeals to a minority of students and not the majority of the student body. 

• Specific: there is a specific target which is leadership in charge. The demand is specifically gender-inclusive signs. 

How to improve this?

We need to reword how we phrase this campaign. Issues that tend to feel more widely-felt. We need to focus on the improvement of dignity and safety of every students. We need to make the campaign feel like a larger fight for student justice, and make sure our students see themselves in the cause. 

3). Santa Clara, and Student Housing 

• Time-bound: there is a deadline, which is the end of the legislative session. It does pass this test. 

• Inspiring/energizing: it doesnt seem to charge up our students, and it tends to be a more theoretically based idea. It fails this test. 

• Relevant: there seems to be no relevancy when it pertains to campus. More of a statewide issue. 

• Specific: Yes.

How to improve this?

We need to keep our viewpoint more focused on student-housing. Which is making student housing more affordable. Making a housing an issue for students, makes it more relevant and energizing to peers. One can still make a education-based campaign.

1. This campaign does not meet the TIERS requirements -- the movement itself does not create a time-specific goal, instead stating a goal of "improving culture in the long run". Additionally, although the movement is relevant and addresses the issues of discriminatory statements, lack of representation, and non-acknowledgement from the administration, this movement is not specific, instead confusing most student and faculty leaders who are not sure of the specific demands of the movement. There is still lots of potential, as the campaign has excited and inspired many students of color, but requires many adjustments.

2. I would first urge the chapter to create a statement of intent, with a clear timeframe and list of demands from administration to increase the institution's accountability in addressing racial discrimination, and why POC voices may be overlooked. I would also organize information sessions for students and faculty, to inform potential allies on the specifics of the movement and how they can use their power.

Howard University College Dems & Bathroom Signs:

1. This campaign does not meet the TIERS requirements, because while the movement is timebound and specific, the indication from gender non-conforming individuals who would be directly impacted by this chance shows a lack of inspiration/excitement (and an indication that there are larger systemic issues that we are not addressing), and relevance. Unfortunately, it seems that this chapter has chosen a topic that --while equally important-- does not possess the same activation power or excitement as other urgent and time-sensitive issues that impact those on campus, and their local community.

2. In this situation, I would table the campaign for gender inclusive bathrooms, and instead focus the chapters energy on an issue that already has a lot of activation -- ICE Off Campus organizing. Because of the intense time-sensitivity and relevance of these events, more students and faculty will rally behind this demand.

Santa Clara Community College Dems & Housing:

1. This campaign struggles to meet the TIERS requirements because it lacks a level of relevance, which results in less activation and energy around the movement (inspiration/energization). Because the larger State Legislature Bill does not impact the students on campus, it is harder for them to understand the importance of their support behind the bill, even if it will positively affect a large population if passed.

2. Due to the nature of the College Dems chapter, I would follow the suggestion to pick a more straightforward bill that impacts the local area around Santa Clara Community College, which the students may feel more inclined and motivated to support. By supporting a local bill, we can increase both the relevance and the activation from students on campus.

This campaign does not meet the TIERS campaign requirements.

• Firstly, there’s no clear timeline or deadline. The goal is framed as “improving culture in the long run,” which is vague.

• The cause is inherently inspiring because it connects to justice, equity, and real student experiences.

• It energizes students of color who directly identify with the issue, but broader participation is limited because the campaign lacks clarity about what people can do.

• Improvements

  • Add deadlines

  • Amplify with storytelling and highlight real student experiences of racism to humanize the issue.

  • Give students visible, actionable steps such as petitions, rallies, or “equity report cards” for departments.

  • Frame it as part of student success and academic excellence, not just diversity, showing that racism impacts everyone’s campus experience.

2. Howard

This campaign also does not meet TIERS campaign requirements.

• No clear timeline or deadline. They say it’s a “priority for the school year,” but that’s vague.

• For the broader student body, it hasn’t connected emotionally.

• Relevant to a specific group, but not seen as relevant to the broader student body compared to other urgent issues (housing affordability, policing, ICE on campus).

• The demand itself is specific but it risks being too narrow if it doesn’t tie to larger inclusion/justice narratives.

• Improvements:

  • Could pivot entirely to “ICE Off Campus” or connect campaigns:

    • Position bathrooms as one piece of a broader “Safe Campus” campaign → safe housing, safe policing, safe from ICE, safe bathrooms.

3. Santa Clara

This campaign fails as well.

• Housing justice is inspiring in theory, but because the policy is abstract and technical, it isn’t sparking emotional connection among classmates.

• People aren’t showing strong interest

• Improvements: Balance the abstract state policy with a tangible local demand. Example:

  • Push the city council for zoning reform near campus.

  • Advocate for more affordable units in Santa Clara specifically for students.

This makes classmates feel that their effort has both an immediate campus impact and a broader statewide purpose.

Howard University College Dems & Bathroom Signs: I do not think it meets the TIERS requirements. Though it is time bound by the academic year and specific enough, there isnt anything energizing about this campaign. They have not provided clear details on why it matters, making their membership confused and disorganized. I believe the topic itself is relevant, the issue of ICE in educational institutions may be a more pressing issue. I would probably have more outreach to explain my campaign and bring more speakers to share personal experiences.

Santa Clara Community College Dems & Housing: I do not think this campaign follows the TIERS requirements. The issue at hand seems to be time bound and specific. Though it lacks relevance (on a campus) and may need more redirection. Due to it missing any spcefics, it is hard to find it energizing or inspiring. I would move to focusing on a local level bill in order to bring people in. If I wanted to still target the specific State Legislature bill, I could make that the end goal but not the main mission.

Despite succeeding in the I,E, and R categories of the Tiers Campaign acronym, this campaign does not fulfill all of the Tiers requirements for multiple reasons. It is not directly tied to a time related goal which can be accomplished or notably worked towards in the short term. Instead it focuses on general shifts over time which can be hard to quantify. It is also noticeably lacking in specificity as it doesn't have a singular target or goal which is easily quantifiable when achieved. This leads to confusion among those who want to get involved in the movement as they don't know exactly what they are working towards.

Improvements:

• They should come up with a specific goal which they can rally their action around. This could be accountability held on university leaders when they dismiss issues of racism or a specific plan to create more representation for students of color. If they chose one of these and gave those involved in the movement specific roles in relation to that goal they could eliminate a lot of confusion.

• They also need to specify more of a time-frame. This would be easily helped by a more specific goal. If they are trying to create an avenue for more student of color representation, they could set a goal to have this representation set up within a semester. This way those involved in the movement could quickly see the results of their labor and would be excited to continue the work.

  
  

  Howard University College Dems & Bathroom Sign

  This campaign also fulfills some but not all components of a successful TIER campaign. It is both time-bounded and specific, but unfortunately it is lacking in the other three components of a good Tiers campaign. Despite having a single specific time bounded goal, they are struggling to maintain interest and support in their movement, because the issue they have chosen is not seen as a widely energizing issue. They are struggling to inspire participation, especially because their are offer issues which many in the community find much more relevant and pressing.

  Improvements:

• They should listen to the people in their base. They need to intentionally go out to their supporters and those who may become their supporters and ask what issues they care about. Depending on what most people are most concerned about they should change their goal to more accurately reflect the concerns of those they want to get involved in their activism.

  
  

  Santa Clara Community College Dems & Housing

  This campaign is successful in its specificity and time boundness as it is working to support a bill which already exists and a clear course of action and lobbying is available to reach their goal, but it is lacking in it's ability to be inspiring, energizing, and relevant to college students who do not see how it effects them. Even though it is an important cause, it is hard to rally people around in issue which they do not see the direct effects of.

  Improvements:

• They should shift to an issue or bill which effects more members of their base and campus community. They can talk to people in their community to see what issues are most relevant to them and then rewrite their activism to better energize the most people in towards a common cause.

• If they really do want to stay with this issue, they should work on mobilizing different people who are already more passionate about this issue and who are more likely to dedicate time and energy to it. This could be community members outside of their traditional college base.

  
  

Howard:

While their demands are time bounded and specific, they are not relevant at all, leading to the movement not being inspired or energized. They should focus on issues that people care about, such as the given example of ICE on campus.

Santa Clara:

This issue is time bounded and specific, but without energizing the campus it does not matter. Even if it is an important goal for the state, if a movement does not directly affect the students on campus it is hard to generate enthusiasm.

Improvement: To sharpen this campaign, the group could demand the administration adopt a bias-reporting system with accountability measures and a commitment to hire more diverse faculty within the year. This makes the campaign specific, time-bounded, and builds momentum toward broader cultural change.

2. Howard University College Dems & Bathroom Signs TIERS Check: The demand is specific and time-bounded, but it is not widely relevant or energizing, which is why turnout is low. The campaign doesn’t connect to the broader concerns students are expressing.

Improvement: Reframe the campaign by broadening it into a “Safe & Inclusive Campus” push that includes gender-inclusive bathrooms but also addresses urgent issues like housing affordability, policing, and ICE’s presence. This makes the campaign feel more relevant and inspiring to a wider student base while keeping tangible goals.

3. Santa Clara Community College Dems & Housing TIERS Check: Relevant at a statewide level, but not inspiring, energizing, or specific for their own campus community. Students don’t feel personally impacted, so participation is low.

Improvement: Pivot toward a local housing campaign—such as pushing the college or city council to increase affordable student housing or reform rental policies near campus. A local win would be easier for classmates to rally behind and could build momentum toward larger statewide fights.

Howard: does not meet the requirements for TIERS. The campaign has become irrelevant with community focuses shifting towards ICE. The campaign is also not successful in inspiring and energizing people since their meetings are not well attended and the people there are unsure of the importance of the campaign. While the campaign is time bound and specific, the organizers should shift priorities to something more important to the community and find a way to make meeting more engaging.

Santa Clara: does not meet the requirements for TIERS because the campaign is not inspiring or energizing. While it is time bound and specific, the organizers might want to focus on something more important to their community to boost engagement with the campaign.

- This campaign does not meet the TIERS requirement given that campaigning against racism is not time bound. Additionally, the topic of racism is nonspecific making the campaign vague. Instead of campaigning against racism on campus as a whole, the College Democrats at GT could choose a specific school or city policy that allows for racist systems to be in place. 

Howard

- The campaign does not meet the TIERS requirement. It is not time bound, energizing, nor specific. I think that while gender inclusivity is an important and relevant topic on its own, to better address the needs of students, it should be recognized as something a part of a bigger and an more specific acknowledgement of unaffordable/inaccessible housing. However, since the community specified it is not a top concern that is energizing for many, it might yield the most utility for them to focus on something else.

Santa Clara

- While this is a specific campaign, the push for a state legislature bill is not relevant to the people on campus. Rather than a lose-lose battle where students are not energized and then the state legislature is not supported, the campaign should be focused on something local. 

T: The protests are not time bound and the timeline is left for the "long run

I: The campaign is inspiring in that it speaks to the experiences of people of color on campus

E: The campaign is not energizing because there are a lack of demands, which makes the next step confusing

R: The campaign is relevant because it speaks to many people's experiences

S: The campaign is not specific because no clear demands are made

To improve this campaign, I would communicate specific goals that are achievable within a certain time frame. For example, the organization could organize a series of protests to be carried out over the span of a couple of weeks. Also, the protests should address a specific issue, such as calling for professors to be sanctioned for their racist remarks

Howard University

T: This campaign is time-bounded in that it is intended to be completed during the school year

I: The issue is not inspiring because very few people come to the meetings, and instead bring up other issues

E: The campaign is not energizing because very few people show up to the meetings

R: The campaign is not relevant because many people believe that other issues are more important

S: The demands are specific

To improve this campaign, I would consider reframing it to be more aligned with what the Student Body wants, which is a response to ICE activity

Santa Clara

T: This campaign can be completed within a set timeframe

I: It is not inspiring because it doesn't directly impact students at the school

E: The campaign is not energizing because it doesn't appeal to the average student

R: The campaign is not relevant because it doesn't affect people at the school

S: The campaign isn't the most specific because the policy it's addressing isn't very straightforward

To improve this campaign I would consider focusing on an issue that directly impacts students at the school

• This campaign does not meet the TIERS requirement because the campaign is not time bound. While attempting to eradicate racism on campus is a wonderful and noble goal, it is too broad to accomplish in months.

• This campaign is also not specific. The leaders of the campaign have failed to identify the specific ways to eradicate racism on campus.

• To rectify this campaign, GT College Dems should focus on specific instances/issues of racism at GT. Perhaps a focus on the lack of diversity in the student body or that discriminatory statements have been made by several professors could be good places for the campaign to start. These examples provide a concrete instance of racism on campus, thereby allowing GT college dems to fight racism on campus by addressing said instances of it.

Howard:

• Howard's campaign does not meet the TIERS requirement, despite its specificity and time-bound nature. The campaign does not seem to be inspiring/energizing for people on campus, nor does it seem to be relevant.

• To sharpen the campaign, I would suggest that Howard college dems switch topics/focuses. Because ICE has a presence on campus, perhaps the campaign would be better focused on protecting students from ICE and educating students on their legal rights. If people are more interested in housing or policing issues, the group should draft a specific and time-bound campaign around those shared issues.

Santa Clara

• This campaign does not meet TIERS requirements, as it does not seem relevant or energizing for students on campus. The campaign is, however, time-bound and specific.

• The campaign would be improved by focusing on legislation more pertinent to students on campus. Leaders should look for a housing bill in Santa Clara to focus on. Once the campaign focuses on housing policy in the campus community, the campaign will be much more successful at garnering more student interest.

Howard University CDA: Though the campaign is time-bound and specific, it is not very energizing or inspiring and is only moderately relevant. It would be a reasonable project to keep on a back burner, but if ICE is generating much more outcry it makes sense to switch focus to that. A solid goal would be to get the university admin to end cooperation with ICE.

SCCC CDA: The campaign is time-bound and has a very specific goal. However, it's not relevant and is only slightly energizing and inspiring. I think it does make sense to start with a more relevant local bill, and if it gets students more riled up about affordable housing then the CDA chapter could circle back aroundto the state bill.

1. The campaign is not time-bound and does not have clear demands, making it hard for interested individuals to follow the campaign.

2. I would improve this campaign by having clear demands or targeting specific aspects of the issue, something that students can identify and rally around changing.

   
   

Howard:

1. The lack of relevance and energy by the student body doesn't meet the TIERS requirements.

2. The Howard student body is clearly more concerned with the presence of ICE on campus, so a campaign pressuring ICE off campus would likely see more student interest and engagement.

   
   

Santa Clara CC:

1. The focus of the campaign does contain something relevant to students, housing, but the scale and impact don't seem to be engaging or energizing students.

2. Santa Clara CC could change the scale of where they are trying to improve housing, starting at the local level, through the University, city or council, which would likely be more engaging.

The campaign does not meet the TIERS requirement because the campaign is not specific in how to address racism at Georgia Tech; no specific policy or platform is mentioned. Though the campaign may be relevant to ethnic & racial minorities on campus, it's not as inspiring as it does not leave a clear impression on the roles they play in the movement.

Howard University: This issue will take YEARS, especially after a post-2024 election America. It's also not relevant when people are much more concerned about their pockets and personal safety. It is because of this out-of-touch campaign that it's not inspiring and has even rubbed some people the wrong way.

Santa Clara: There are many parties involved in a project like this, both private and public, it may take decades even. The average person doesn't have time to review pages of a platform, and there aren't any specific policy statements that let people know the gist of the campaign. When people are confused, they won't get excited; ever see an excited person in stats class?

• Not TIERS because it lacks the S (specific). Although they have a relevant issue, it's just not specific enough. Also, it's not time-bound either, as a campaign like this can take several years. I mean, it just doesn't mention time deadlines at all. I would include make the campaign more specific as to what it's attempting to accomplish: fair representation OR preventing racism on campus. I would also break it up and make my campaign within the academic year.

Howard University:

• NOT TIERS because it lacks I, inspiration. There are more pressing issues like ICE being on campus. I would perhaps suspend the campaign and tackle the issues people care more about and then come back to this campaign afterwards. At least they have the T, (within the school year), and they are specific in what they want (gender inclusive signs in the bathrooms).

Santa Clara:

• Not TIERS because it lacks not R, relevance to the college students. it is inspiring though because it can spark real change for millions of people. It is energizing because of how impactful it is though. And I believe it is T because it the state bill has a deadline for when it will be voted on, and so that provides a deadline for the campaign to plan their time and checks off of.