Issue Seven: Roots Counterculture Magazine
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Executive Board of Counterculture Magazine would like to extend an immense amount of gratitude to everyone who participated in this project and helped us create Issue Seven. It is because of your support that we were able to keep the momentum we needed to make it into the magazine it is today.
We would first like to extend a huge thank you to our faculty advisor, Dr. Thad Williamson at the Jepson School of Leadership. Dr. Williamson was one of the first supporters of this project and helped us to conceive many of the ideas that are foundational to the magazine. His support during our time as both an affiliated and unaffiliated organization is unprecedented, and we are forever grateful.
Next, we would also like to thank our team of writers, who have persisted through this project despite academic and personal stress. Thank you for telling your stories and providing your insights, as well as devoting much of your time to the creation of this project. Without your hard work, this magazine would not be able to exist. We would also like to extend a thank you to our creative design and social media team for developing the concept for this issue and making it come to life through visual narratives. This issue would not be where it is now without our creative design team’s hard work on theme ideas, cover design, social media, formatting, and the website
Lastly, we would like to thank the larger University of Richmond community for their consistent support over the last four issues of the magazine. From sharing social media posts from the Counterculture Instagram account to telling us how excited you were to see this project come to fruition, your endless support and enthusiasm propelled us to make this issue come alive. We are elated to have you as our mentors, peers, and friends.
LETTERFROMTHE EDITORI
As I look back through Issue 7 to write this letter, I find myself impressed, proud, and inspired. I am inspired to reflect on my roots. Doing so reminds me of growing up in Nashville surrounded by music and a diverse environment, the culture of Southern urban life, and all the major people, places, and events of my life. I consider the good and the bad, all the things that made me the way I am. I accept the bad and despite it I am proud of who I am. I love who I’ve become and reflecting on my roots drives me to continue improving myself and all the things I have the privilege to hold power in.
I feel similarly about America and UR. As the articles discuss in detail, both of these places have major problems, some of which are deeply rooted in the institutions. But because they are part of my identity and my roots, I feel a drive to change them for the better, and I truly believe Counterculture is an incredible resource for just that. All of the contributors to the magazine have a genuine drive towards social justice, and this issue, as with every issue, I am blown away by the product of all their hard work and passion. Institutions like Counterculture are more important now than ever, in a time where free speech, diversity, and social justice are under attack. I am so honored to serve my first semester as co-editor in chief along with Myanna and our fantastic executive, creative design, and staff writer teams. I hope that everyone reading Issue 7 feels similarly inspired to reflect on their roots and change the institutions they are a part of for the better.
-Walter Ostrowski
LETTERFROMTHE EDITORII
Thinking about my “roots” conjures images of sweltering springs and summers spent stealing honey-suckle through the neighbors’ wiry fence. They rouse memories of wooden roadside peach stands on the way to my grandma’s house, and barefoot excursions through the park. These moments tenderly shape my understanding of home, heritage, and identity. And, as this is my first year serving as Co-Editor of Counterculture Magazine, I’ve found myself reflecting on these foundational “roots” in an attempt to determine what it is that I want to carry forward and what I hope to challenge in this position.
This issue prompts readers to similarly reflect, because, unfortunately, “roots” don’t always evoke such tender images. Sometimes they choke instead of nourish. Sometimes they wind themselves too tightly around a place, a family, or a system and block out all light and all opportunities for growth. The theme challenges us all to interrogate our “roots” too; cultural, familial, political, and personal. And while some articles offer odes to legacy and tradition, others rip through the dirt to expose what festers beneath. From essays on the weaponization of “woke” rhetoric to commentary on the perils of the country’s transition to techno-feudalism, this issue is both a love letter and a reckoning addressed to the “land of the free.”
-Myanna Hightower
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN PUERTO RICO
AND THE UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND’S CONTRIBUTION
Applied Energy Services Corp. (AES) is a global American utility and power generation company striving to make a “greener, smarter future a reality.” They have established plants worldwide to generate and sell electricity to utility companies. According to the Code of Conduct found on their website, AES’s mission is “accelerating the future of energy, together.” As they have various sub-companies, the one I will focus on throughout this article is AES Puerto Rico, which owns and operates a coal plant in Guayama, Puerto Rico.
Dr. Mary Finley-Brook, a professor of Geography, Environment, and Sustainability at the University of Richmond (UR), has dedicated many years to researching the human rights violations of AES at various plants worldwide. Within her role at the University of Richmond, she has been part of a faculty/student research collective titled “Decolonial Feminist Resistance” co-led by faculty members Alicia Díaz, Mariela Méndez, and Patricia Herrera. The two main goals of this group are to support climate justice for Puerto Rico and to intervene against gender and racial violence. She has also been working with UR students to document human rights violations committed by AES Corp. Her work addresses the numerous human rights violations, particularly in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Chile. This article will reference her research and statements on AES’s role in environmental abuse, particularly in the Caribbean.
Although they promise a positive future for all, AES has had and continues to have devastating consequences on the environment surrounding their plants. They show no regard for previously established environmental statutes regarding air pollution and coal ash collection, leaving the people of Puerto Rico to deal with the turmoil. Through their plant in Guayama, they collect coal ash, allowing it to be swept into the air, negatively affecting those who live nearby. Coal ash is a toxic pollutant that can have cancerous effects on the environment and the human body along with many species of animals. Dr. Gerson Jiménez-Castañón, a physician specializing in Internal Medicine gave a witness statement in a House Committee hearing titled “Toxic Coal Ash: Adverse Health Effects from the Puerto Rico Plant and Options for Plant Closure.” The hearing featured testimony from several witnesses, including David Owens (Vice Chairman of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, or PREPA), Ruth Santiago (Community and Environmental Attorney), and Dr. Jiménez-Castañón, a physician based in Guayama.
In his Witness Statement, Dr. Jiménez stated some of the toxic products that come from coal ash such as arsenic, mercury, lead, selenium, boron, cadmium, and cobalt. He states, “exposure to radiation can induce the formation of various types of cancer and congenital deformities.” Companies like AES force exposure to these toxic products on people whose families have lived there for longer than the company has existed. Furthermore, many people cannot afford to move out for a variety of reasons including an ongoing housing crisis. As a result, they remain in toxic environments, suffering from detrimental health consequences. Dr. Jiménez continues on to mention how doctors working in the southeast region of Puerto Rico have noticed a dramatic increase in diseases of the respiratory and urinary tracts and a variety of cancers. This uptick in various diseases specifically in this region proves that there is a direct causation between the environmental effects of the plant and the effects they have on the human body. For more information on specific examples of increases in specific diseases, see Dr. Jiménez’s Witness Report. He later references a comparative study done in Guayama, where the plant exists, and Fajardo, a town in the northeastern region of Puerto Rico to see what the different statistics of rates of disease look like and whether or not they appear to be similar. They concluded that Guayama has a much higher incidence of the evaluated diagnoses.
On top of the negative environmental effects of the currently operating plants, AES has committed various human rights violations throughout the southern region of Puerto Rico. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, AES has failed to comply with previously established guidelines referencing calibration, installation, maintenance, and reporting as well as air permits. Due to high profits and large margins derived especially from their plants in Puerto Rico, they can afford to pay whatever fine is issued to them for breaking said law(s). Disproportionate punishments are what allow large corporations like AES to continue breaking laws for higher profits, even if it comes at the expense of human lives.
Dr. Finley-Brook cites two of the most recent examples when asked about the effects that AES has had on Puerto Rico. The first of these environmental standard violations took place in October of 2024 when the EPA announced a settlement with AES Puerto Rico regarding an electricity generating plant in Guayama under its coal ash program. Through this settlement, AES bound itself to address groundwater monitoring issues and to ensure proper reporting of its coal ash landfill under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. AES $71,845 which is a relatively minute a of the size of their corporation and pa Macrotrends, a research platform pro long-term investors, AES made a reve decline fro h i
Satisfy your needs!
With fines as relatively small as the one imposed on AES, large corporations do not feel incentivized to stop their harmful activity. It is only with fines or other punishments proportional to the size of the violations these corporations continue to commit that this harmful behavior will stop. Small fines will not encourage corporations to stop their environmentally apathetic behavior, as long as they are maintaining the same high profits by doing what they are already doing.
to maintaining zardous
The main goal is to limit the emission trogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon ore. When companies violate the Clean Air Act, it directly affects marginalized communities, as violations are more often committed in areas with a higher minority population, specifically Black communities. Often referred to as “una zona de sacrificio” or “ a sacrifice zone,” the southern coast of Puerto Rico deals with countless cases of environmental abuse. This “sacrifice zone,” consists of mostly lowincome, Afro-Puertorican families making it cheaper and readily available for companies like AES to establish their more environmentally damaging business practices. It is in this region of the island where AES established their coal plant and it is in this region where they continue to oppress the local minority communities to achieve their goals: profits.
AES’ disposal of mass amounts of coal ash produced in their plant in Guayama, Puerto Rico has the most destructive effects on the environment and the people living nearby. The coal ash is known to contain high levels of toxic materials like arsenic and other heavy metals, as stated prior by Dr. Jiménez. Before operations of this plant began, AES decided to deliver their leftover coal ash to rural communities in the Dominican Republic. However, after local doctors confirmed horror stories of children being born with severe birth defects such as cranial deformities and missing limbs, they halted transportation of the coal ash. Birth defects are reported to be caused by an increase in the presence of arsenic, one of the toxic products stated earlier, in the blood of the mother. The EPA ordered them to pay at least six million dollars in fines to the Dominican Republic’s Environmental and Natural Resources Agency, resulting in the termination of this form of removal. Clearly a high enough fine can discourage a company as corrupt as AES from continuing harmful and selfish behavior, so why not implement similar policies on other laws that are continuously violated?
AES’ disposal of mass amounts of coal ash produced in their plant in Guayama, Puerto Rico has the most destructive effects on the environment and the people living nearby. The coal ash is known to contain high levels of toxic materials like arsenic and other heavy metals, as stated prior by Dr. Jiménez. Before operations of this plant began, AES decided to deliver their leftover coal ash to rural communities in the Dominican Republic. However, after local doctors confirmed horror stories of children being born with severe birth defects such as cranial deformities and missing limbs, they halted all transportation of the coal ash. Birth defects are reported to be caused by an increase in the presence of arsenic, one of the toxic products stated earlier, in the blood of the mother. The EPA ordered them to pay at least six million dollars in fines to the Dominican Republic’s Environmental and Natural Resources Agency, resulting in the termination of this form of removal. Clearly a high enough fine can discourage a company as corrupt as AES from continuing harmful and selfish behavior, so why not implement similar policies on other laws that are continuously violated?
The University of Richmond directly contributes to the success of AES and all their projects around the globe. They have an agreement for 20 years of renewable energy credits from AES’s project, Spider Solar, in Spotsylvania, VA. This project consists of about 47,000 solar panels at the Spider Solar facility which all produce 41,000 megawatt-hours of solar energy annually. This amount of energy would be enough to power roughly 5,000 homes and neutralize 19,720 metric tons of carbon every year according to an article written by ABC 8 News. In this same article, the Director of Sustainability Rob Andrejewski states, “UR’s greenhouse gas emissions will be 57% below where they were in 2009, putting us in a great position to aim for carbon neutrality.” This deal significantly decreases the University’s carbon footprint by more than half. Although this may benefit the University and the environment we live in, these solar panels are located in AES’s Spotsylvania facility and are completely operated by them. Before any in-depth investigation, this project may seem like a complete success producing undeniably advantageous environmental effects and making UR one of the “greenest” or most environmentally conscious universities in the United States. Nonetheless, we must examine the morality of the company itself, before we call a project like this “successful.” Is it ethical to uphold our values of maintaining as low a carbon footprint as possible at the expense of supporting a company that has been accused of human rights violations in marginalized communities?
The municipal government of Spotsylvania County, VA received some backlash before the installation of the Spider Solar project. Residents near the project site feared it would alter the character of their community, according to a local news article written in 2019 during the planning process of this project. To build vast fields of solar panels, the natural world around must be artificially disrupted. Similar to the solar plant in Guayama, mass amounts of natural resources must be ripped from the ground and destroyed in order to make room for these types of projects. The difference, however, is that the solar plant in Guayama is not close to civilization like its counterpart in Spotsylvania. The destruction of these natural resources so close to homes can have adverse effects on the daily lives of the local residents, forcing them to live alongside thousands of acres of solar panels with potentially harmful effects.
A group titled, “The Concerned Citizens of Spotsylvania,” containing 1,100 members on its mailing list has publicly criticized the Spotsylvania Solar Energy Center. They claim that there is no benefit to them and that this project has transformed their surroundings into fields of metal and glass. All of the power generated by this plant is being sold to larger corporations, providing the local residents of Spotsylvania with no benefit whatsoever. Along with the lack of benefit, they address more concerns than just the distasteful sight of solar panels in their town. They mention the possibility of increased traffic due to the construction of this project, a decrease in the property values of neighboring homes, the possibility of an introduction of toxic substances from the panels into the water, and a possibility of the “heat island effect” causing them to abandon the project altogether, leaving Spotsylvania to clean it up. Some of the concerns have since been addressed by spokespeople for the company, yet Concerned Citizens believes that many of the claims they make are exaggerated.
Solar Power :it makes cents and saves dollars, right?
On the other hand, according to the same article, sPower, a Utah-based solar company jointly owned by AES that assisted with the creation of this project, stated that this project would help make the town more known by bringing more revenue to the country without any added burden coinciding with the state’s energy goals. Although their intention may be to reduce carbon emissions by converting to a solar-based energy system, profits remain a central aspect of their goals as for all companies. This project also appears to be the first of many to come, implying that there are more projects on the way, according to Daniel Menahem, sPower’s senior manager of solar development and the project manager for the Spotsylvania facility.
Several students and faculty wrote and signed a call for action in favor of the early termination of UR’s contract with AES. The statement addresses the University’s “careless support” of a corporation that benefits at the expense of human lives, specifically in marginalized communities. They demand that the University take accountability for their actions and, from now on, carefully examine all future business contracts with proposed partners to make sure that they follow ethical and sustainable guidelines. They also demand, once partnerships have been established, that the University verify its compliance with “routine follow-ups as necessary safeguards in order to produce sustainable development in accordance with human rights” (UR Climate Justice call to action). They received a total of 63 signatures in allyship from both students and faculty.
Dr. Finley-Brook, along with Díaz, Méndez, and Herrera, met with Dave Hale, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at the University of Richmond, asking him for a response to the students’ request regarding the call-to-action that was signed. They were told that the University would not consider early termination of their contract with AES (Dr. Mary FinleyBrook).
After being asked if she foresees the University cutting ties with AES any time soon, Dr. Finley-Brook responded, “No”. She also mentioned how AES’s coal plant in Guayama has been scheduled to close in 2027, but the decision is slowly and quietly being reversed.
Additionally, the University does not accurately advertise the project, leaving out all of the negative consequences that have been mentioned above. They claim that they, “[take] environmental stewardship seriously,” yet they avoid the costs that come with this project, solely mentioning the size of the project and the power that it will bring to the campus helping it achieve carbon neutrality. It remains clear that the University, specifically the Office for Sustainability, has shown allegiance to their goals of obtaining carbon neutrality, but at what cost?
HOW POP CULTURE PREDICTED THE RISE OF CONSERVATISM
The cultural pendulum, which consistently swings from liberal to conservative every decade or so, has recently swung hard right once more. With Donald Trump’s decisive victory over Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, it’s clear that a traditionally conservative future is on the horizon for the U.S. And while this shift may feel incredibly abrupt, especially given the closeness of the election in several key states, pop culture has historically provided subtle glimpses into these shifts of the cultural pendulum - sometimes even accurately predicting political and economic trends that follow.
Take for example the late 90’s. During the Reagan administration, movies like Top Gun (1986) and Rocky IV (1985) captured the era’s emphasis on individualism, patriotism, and nationalism. However, as Clinton transitioned into office these themes were replaced by more cynical worldviews reflecting citizens’ growing disillusionment with the government encapsulated in movies of the era like The Matrix (1999) and Fight Club (1999).
This pattern continued throughout the Bush and Obama years with shows like The O.C (2003) and Glee (2009) mirroring the political moods, characterized by advocacy and anti-intolerance of their respective administrations. Now, under Trump, we’re witnessing a cultural shift once more - this time towards a return to traditional values: the resurgence of wellness and diet culture, the rise of “classic” beauty and femininity spurred by the idolization of influencers like Nara Smith and Hannah Neelman (Ballerinafarm), and the embrace of elite “old money” and “quiet luxury” aesthetics. Though not necessarily films or TV shows, each of these trends reflects the current societal longing for stability and tradition and a return to America’s “roots,” echoed in ideals championed by the present political landscape
Wellness Culture
At the core of the wellness movement is the quiet rebellion of overindulgence and gluttony and a prioritization of self-care through clean eating and fitness regimes that emphasize mindfulness. But behind the perfectly curated Instagram photos of matcha lattes atop sleek pink yoga mats and refrigerator shelves meticulously lined with glass jars of organic produce lies a starkly conservative ideology that repackages responsibility and purity culture as “health.”
This fixation on purity is righteously evoked through the language of wellness. Words like “detox,” “toxin,” and “cleanse,” suggest that an individual's body requires purging and purification in order to be perceived as healthy. The biblical parallels of this rhetoric aren’t coincidental and many psychologists, sociologists, and pop culture journalists have noted how well current wellness culture mirrors organized religion. Articles from The Guardian and Dazed Magazine have explored this connection as early as 2018, arguing that ritualized exercise has become akin to prayer, juice cleanses and restrictive dieting akin to religious fasting, and “cheating” during either of these practices akin to a sin. Social media networks have ultimately amplified the quasi-religious nature of wellness culture, creating opportunities for individuals to worship together. TikToks and Instagram posts advise the best at-home pilates instructors - @movewithnicole, @jessypilates, and @luvmadeleine - and encourage community members to stay accountable through the use of passive-aggressive encouragement. Short-form TikTok slideshows flaunt sea moss supplements, homemade smoothies, group exercise classes, and lemon water overlain with captions like “control yourself” and “get up.” The former idea of responsibility, or personal accountability, then becomes the key to achieving this highly sought-after purity.
This relentless emphasis on discipline extends beyond exercise and diet into a broad rejection of traditional modern medicines as well, reinforcing the idea that health is a matter of personal willpower. While skepticism toward the medical industry exists across political lines, wellness culture promotes a return to a so-called “natural order,” encouraging homeopathic remedies over scientifically backed treatments. Health influencers instead actively encourage the use of “oatzempic,” and navel pulling with castor oil as a means of weight loss, garlic in the nose for sinus relief, and “sun gazing” in order to boost mood and energy.
Ultimately, the modern wellness movement has succeeded in transforming acts of self-care into moral performances using long-standing pillars of conservative ideology - purity culture and personal accountability - repackaged for the digital age.
A Return to Classic“Beauty”and Femininity
Expanding upon the wellness movement, its heavily gendered elements have additionally given rise to a subculture that idealizes the “trad wife,” traditional wife, and “clean girl” aesthetics.
Encapsulated by popular influencers like Nara Smith (@naraazizasmith) and Hannah Neelman (@ballerinafarm), the “trad wife” aesthetic romanticizes homemaking, femininity, and selfsufficiency, tying women’s value to domesticity and submission. Nara Smith, for instance, has amassed a huge following solely from creating videos of herself preparing elaborate homemade meals from scratch and without pre-packaged ingredients - chicken burgers, pot stickers, cheerios, etc. Similarly, Ballerinafarm, or Hannah Neelman, documents her idyllic life as a mother of eight, baking sourdough and promoting homesteading. The perfectly lit, visually pleasing, and dramaticized content of both creators therefore presents domestic labor as aspirational, reinforcing the idea that a woman’s highest calling is to be a nurturing mother and a devoted wife - a more obvious conservative idea.
Who’s that girl?
Clean girl era!
At the same time, beauty trends for women are shifting in manners that reflect the same ideologies - the “clean girl” aesthetic. Brazilian Butt Lifts (BBLs), exaggerated lip filler, prominent contour, and all the characteristics of the surgically ideal 2010’s woman are being exchanged in favor of a more “natural” look. Hailey Bieber, Bella Hadid, Lily Rose Depp and other white Eurocentric women are the new blueprints, idolized for their slick-back buns, dewy skin, and minimal makeup look. But the effortless branding
packages of the “clean-girl” and “trad wife” aesthetic still can’t hide their underlying conservative messaging that femininity should be controlled, specifically within the bounds of conservative ideals.
Reclaiming Classic Elitism
True wealth, according to the recently popular “old money” and “quiet luxury” aesthetics, isn’t signaled by flashy luxury brand logos but by subtle indicators of generational privilege - yet another reflection of a broader conservative shift. The aesthetic, which favors cashmere sweaters, tailored blazers, and minimalistic gold jewelry, places an explicit value on “old money” over “new money,” rejecting the aspirational consumerism of the early 2010s that once allowed anyone to “appear” wealthy with the right Louis Vuitton tote or Gucci belt. Now, however, wealth is meant to be understated and recognizable only to those “in the know.” Brands like Ralph Lauren, Brunello Cucinelli, and Khaite have surged in popularity as individuals vie to mimic the effortless opulence of figures like Jackie Kennedy and Carolyn BesseteKennedy who have emerged as prominent style icons in the “quiet luxury” movement and are the stars of many Tiktok and Instagram collages purporting the style. Individuals share “style lessons” learned from the pair, things “off limits” according to the women, and where to buy their minimalistic looks.
Entertainment media of the current period like Saltburn (2023) and Succession (2018) that romanticize this style and characters whose wealth is wholly inherited have certainly emboldened this movement and the glorification of a world where wealth and power are solely inheritable and social hierarchies are rigid.
“Lots of people get lost in Saltburn”
Conclusion
All of these trendswellness, “trad wife,” ”clean girl,” “quiet luxury,” and “old money” aestheticsoutwardly espouse conservative values in various aspects.
On a deeper level, however, each one reflects a larger cultural desire to maintain continuity and control in a time when uncertainty is rampant. Still, the fact that that control is cloaked in the language of empowerment and self-discipline ultimately serves as a reminder that conservative values need not always announce themselves outright to wield influence.
THEIMPACTOFTHETRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S REMOVALOFPUBLICLY AVAILABLEDATAAND RESEARCH
One of the primary concerns of the Trump Administration thus far has been removing formerly publicly available data and research from federal government websites. Through executive orders, thousands of pages containing information regarding the LGBTQ+ community, reproductive health, racial and economic disparities, environmental justice, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have been erased. These removals are harmful to valuable research, mental health, physical and sexual health, and the general education of the population. Further than serving a far right-wing agenda, the orders are reflective of the alarming dictator-like mindset of Trump and his administration.
This file no longer exists???
Much of the information erased has been data and research on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website, largely regarding sexual health and family planning and extending to other areas like chronic diseases and vaccination. In many cases, some of the removals have been of unidentifiable cause, but it appears that many pages have been removed simply for containing phrases related to the aforementioned subjects, regardless of the pages’ actual topics. Access to health databases and information is crucial both for further research and for personal education of the public. The removal will certainly lead to worse health outcomes for those now unable to access information related to health issues, particularly sexual health issues, access to which, despite public debate, is critical for the utilization of resources that lead to better health outcomes (especially for people with biologically female reproductive organs) and better socioeconomic development
Information about LGBTQ+ health, history, and community has also been wiped from federal websites. Access to this information is crucial for mental health outcomes. Many members of the LGBTQ+ community, particularly youth, rely on the internet for information about gender identity and sexuality. It is important to have private, comprehensive sources of education for queer youth, as well as for the education of the general public.
nistration have been pages hese pages of course, are es of information ess by keeping re of. The attack f the Trump protect the
The actions of the Trump Administration online reflect deeply troubling patterns. Tight control of public information, specifically regarding problems existing under an administration, is how dictators and fascist governments have historically controlled their population, and it is no different in the age of the internet. In addition to their infamous book burnings, Nazis destroyed sexual health archives and attacked organizations that supported sexual and gender research. Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak directed an internet shutdown in 2011 to suppress public dissent and the Chinese government heavily censors online media for similar reasons. The thousands of current removals are more than just senseless hindrances to public information and social progress in the name of advancing conservative values. They are abuses of power and intentional tools of control. By keeping the public in the dark on real issues, those in power can more easily instill fear and distrust within the populace, diverting attention away from the extremely wealthy, powerful, and privileged people who benefit from the administration’s policies like tax cuts and corporate deregulation.
The removal of publicly available information is just one part of the administration’s broader strategy based on fear, hatred, and absolute control. Sweeping federal budget cuts and layoffs to fund tax cuts, slashing public education spending, and xenophobic immigration and deportation policies all go hand-in-hand with the eradication of information from federal websites. By keeping the public uninformed, uneducated, poor, jobless, and hateful towards each other, the wealthy and powerful strip the public of the will and the power to fight the injustices those in power would like to keep in place.
While it is difficult to directly fight the removal of information from federal websites, it is important to stay engaged and passionate. To stay informed is a form of resistance. Though federal webpages are being erased, there are plenty of reliable sources online about socioeconomic disparities, DEI, LGBTQ+ health and community, family planning, and more. You can also utilize your right to free speech and protest to communicate the importance of proper education about these topics and fight for whatever you are passionate about. Supporting organizations like Counterculture Magazine and others that celebrate social justice and free speech is another good way to exercise that right. Political engagement is also critical. The most direct ways to stay politically engaged are identifying and contacting your representatives, voting, and supporting progressive candidates. Finally, you simply cannot lose your empathy or your capacity to love. When those in power intend to use hate to control you and the population, it is a form of resistance to choose love instead. Fight for social justice, but don’t forget to celebrate the people and things that you love, and don’t allow hate to guide your actions. Show the administration you can fight back without using their tactics.
“Fight for social justice!”
THEATTACKON DIVERSITY,EQUITY, ANDINCLUSION:A REALITYCHECK
Diversity: the real threat to tradition!
Methods of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) have been met with resistance since the civil rights act of 1965. The earliest method of inclusion, the desegregation of schools, was met with picket signs and required an escort by U.S Marshals.Today, formerly segregated schools have largely transformed into tuition-based private institutions, primarily attended by white children from affluent families. While some schools offer scholarships and society at large professes a commitment to diversity, new forms of resistance are emerging. However, the war on diversity has never ended, it’s only been destabilized. Reigniting the war now more forcibly is President Trump since he took office on January 20, 2025. DEI is a tool used to blame plane crashes for, despite no investigation being made and to eliminate generals from the military. But let us step back; surely the returning resurgence of anti DEI must have come from somewhere.
Resurgence
On May 25th, 2020, George Floyd died at the knee of a police officer, while other officers watched. He was asphyxiated for 9 and a half minutes and this was all caught on video (discretion advised). Can you imagine the countless times this may have happened before our modern digital age? Tragically, dying due to police brutality is not new, but is unique to both Black and Latine communities. Days after George Floyd died, the country reacted. The nation collectively fought against the government and society to address the issue of black men dying at the hands of police. It even went further: “ Organizations begin to embrace DEI as a holistic approach to aiming to promote diversity in representation, ensure equitable access to opportunities, and foster an inclusive environment where everyone feels valued and can fully participate.”
I remember this period being a time of deep reflection. Although I am not part of the Black community myself, many of my friends and neighbors are. As a person of color and a child of immigrants, I’ve personally experienced racism in many forms. At that time, I was aspiring to join corporate America (though that's no longer my goal). Witnessing big corporations and communities nationwide affirming the importance of racial justice filled me with hope for the future. An injustice to one truly is an injustice to all, and it seemed the nation at large were collectively committing to making America a better place.
Backsliding
Now, it seems that was a false future and a false hope. Companies are rolling back their DEI practices following President Trump's inauguration. Trump proclaiming that both companies and the state and federal government need to hire on experience, performance, and quality and eliminate DEI is essentially his way of saying that ALL of those individuals that fall under the umbrella of DEI are unqualified, undeserving, and a burden. Prior to his inauguration day, there was already criticism of DEI and it even went so far as to call Kamala Harris, an elected official serving as DA, Senator, and Vice President a DEI hire. Think about that for a second.
So Let’s Ask Ourselves: “What is Going On?”
At its core, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is exactly what it sounds like. Diversity is abundant across the United States, reflecting the many resilient communities that have arrived and built their lives here. It manifests in thoughts, values, and representation—whether in elections, workplaces, or social structures. Equity is about going beyond what is merely "equal" to ensure resources are allocated adequately for true opportunity. Imagine how many more engineers, chemists, and lawyers we would have if individuals from underprivileged backgrounds had access to a world-class education. I l i i b i i h se diverse backgrounds to the table and equity is e. Let us not fall into the mentality that diversity, ome magic wand to instantly bestow jobs upon were this way, we would see the job market very s today. But the truth is, DEI holds immense value for es.
And all because of DEI!
EastPalestinianDerailment
Now, let s bust a common myth: marginalized people do not get corporate jobs simply because it’s "easier" for them. Let me be clear every person of color (POC) I’ve met in these spaces has been the smartest person in the room. Why? Because when you don’t have the privilege of turning to your parents for career guidance, connections, or financial support, you’re forced to carve your own path. That takes grit. That takes survival instincts. To pretend otherwise is absurd. When you have the President of the United States blaming horrific accidents like the plane crash in DC as a result of DEI, Trump demonizes real people.
It would be a mistake to assume DEI resulted in a POC takeover of the workforce. We are still far in between. We are still vastly underrepresented. Yet, somehow, we’re the ones being attacked? Meanwhile, Jimmy landed his Big Law job because his dad was a partner, and Julie secured her consulting internship because the VP was her godmother. Let’s stop pretending white mediocrity doesn’t exist. Privilege often breeds complacency, yet we live in a society that rewards the lazy while scrutinizing those who had to work twice as hard.
Let me just say: White people do earn their seat at the table, they just do not have to prove themselves like POC do. That’s why when we do make it, we are beating the odds.
We are judged for lacking education, for working "low-skilled" jobs, for struggling to make ends meet. But when we do make it, we’re told we don’t deserve to be here? Be serious. Be so serious.
Let’s not pretend that we live in a country where everyone has always been equal. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have needed laws to protect Black Americans from Jim Crow-era discrimination. If racism weren’t embedded in our institutions, there wouldn’t be a toxic culture of white supremacy within the military. Women wouldn’t have had to fight for the right to vote. Immigrants wouldn’t be locked in cages. We wouldn’t see acts of terror where individuals target people in grocery stores or places of worship simply because of who they are. There wouldn’t be statues honoring white supremacists or universities that willingly accept money from them.
We cannot afford to be passive about racism in our society—because passivity is complicity. And complicity ....complicity is unacceptable and reinvigorates the harmful systematic issues we are facing today.
So,What is the Threat of DEI? Equality. Equality is Ultimately What They Are Fighting Against
“You will not replace us” were the words chanted at the Charlottesville rally, aimed to mobilize white supremacists, Neo-Nazi’s, and others. These individuals were not denounced by the president. On January 6th, when the same groups and even more from obscure underground communities resurfaced, neither conservatives nor the president condemned their actions. Their acts of violence were celebrated, and they were ultimately pardoned, sending a message that political violence in the guise of white supremacy is acceptable.
Allow me to conclude with this message: As a person of color, a community member, a daughter of immigrants, and a changemaker, I urge you to pay attention. It is time to fight back and mobilize—both yourself and those around you. We are at a pivotal moment, and the responsibility to restore or redefine our values lies with us. Support your allies, find new ones, and protect each other. In times of uncertainty, we only have each other.
For more information, feel free to check out a new podcast called A New Majority. I sit with local leaders and academic experts, inspiring students and everyday people to have conversations aimed at mobilizing our communities.
ACHAINSAWTOTRUTH: AXINGFACTCHECKING ADMISTONLINE
MISINFORMATIONAND DISINFORMATION
For years, social media has been an accessible platform for budding activists seeking to engage in online dialogue. It also serves as a space to educate people on political issues or simply create communities of like-minded people. Unfortunately, social media platforms are not exactly the digital utopia outlined above since they are constantly riddled with misinformation and disinformation. These two terms might be used interchangeably, but there is an important distinction. Misinformation is incorrect information shared without knowledge of its falsehood, whereas disinformation is intentionally shared with this knowledge in mind for a specific purpose. However, both can cause damage, especially concerning U.S. politics. In particular, the rampant misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms had significant implications throughout the 2024 U.S. presidential election and are currently consequential in the initial stages of the new Trump administration. In these trying times, it might feel hopelessly frustrating to be confronted with these blatant falsehoods that even people we know accept unwittingly. But we can try to combat this misinformation by arming ourselves with education; only then can we gain a broader understanding of how it spreads, and only then can we train ourselves and others to avoid falling into these online rabbit holes. It is likely not an understatement that the state of our democracy depends on it.
Misinformation,Disinformation,and the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
This past election cycle was suffused with online misinformation and disinformation, tremendously worsened by the use of artificial intelligence (AI). An article from the Brookings Institution highlighted some downright bizarre AI-constructed media weaponized against former presidential candidate Kamala Harris. For instance, a photo depicting Harris in swimwear and embracing Jeffrey Epstein was posted on social media but later debunked as AI-generated. Even her running mate Tim Walz was not spared, with false claims of Walz being a perpetrator of abuse toward a young man 30 years ago also circulating online. But perhaps the most outlandish claims were directed at the Biden Administration, of which Harris was vice president, in an attempt to undermine her ability and gain support for Trump. These efforts gave rise to the erroneous narratives that immigrants were eating cats and dogs—which Trump broadcasted during the televised presidential debate with Harris—hurricane relief funds were being funneled to undocumented immigrants, and that a Haitian immigran Georgia counties shortly after settling in t
All these fictitious declarations were meant from the very beginning to sow dissent against the candidates, though experts have indicated that Harris had far more disinformation waged against her than Trump. While many sources of disinformation were domestic, supposedly other sources came from foreign countries like Russia, intending to fuel fear among U.S. voters, and also China, with its highly controversial influence via TikTok. But perhaps the most malicious source of election misinformation was Elon Musk’s social media platform X. It has been suggested that Musk manipulated the algorithm of X to amplify his misleading election posts in Trump’s favor, a strategy that has never been wielded in past election cycles. In addition, the relatively new Community Notes feature on X, which enables approved community members to correct misleading posts instead of verified fact-checkers, largely failed to combat the spread of misinformation throughout this campaign. A study found that out of 283 misleading X posts examined, 209 did not have accurate fact-checking notes or 74%. On posts with user notes, the original misleading posts were viewed 13x more than the notes. This community feature on X was first implemented in 2021 under the name Birdwatch, then renamed Community Notes by Musk in 2022 when he overtook the platform. Based on the analysis above, it is evident that mis- and disinformation might have influenced the dynamics of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, although its effects on vote choice are still somewhat unclear. Nevertheless, Meta’s recent decision to stop fact-checking on Instagram and Facebook this past January could further contribute to misinformation under the new Trump administration.
That’s just one opinion!
Social Media Falsehoods Fueling Demolition of Democracy?
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, decided at the start of this year to halt factchecking programs on Facebook, Instagram, and other Meta platforms as early as March—a move many believe was due to pressure from Trump. After all, both the president and Musk have said that these programs were “biased and suppress free speech,” and it’s no secret that these tech CEOs are in constant contact with Trump and each other given their front-row seat attendance at his inauguration. Even if the decree has not yet been implemented, the pervasive falsehoods surrounding the recent LA wildfires underscore the increasingly foreboding impacts that await when factchecking is eliminated. In the wake of these misinformation blazes, Meta factcheckers tried to debunk conspiracy theories such as videos of people looting from burning homes (they were actually helping to rescue belongings). Undoubtedly, this slashing of fact-checkers under Meta spells disaster for our political system in the near future.
A week before Inauguration Day, the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra lamented the high distrust many Americans still have for federal health agencies. The COVID-19 pandemic likely contributed to the approval rating of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) dropping from 64% to 40%. Becerra states that it is difficult to regain this trust because of the sway social media influencers hold over users regarding health topics. There is just not enough federal money to combat this disinformation. This situation does not bode well for the incoming Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose anti-vaccine sentiment in the past is wellknown. Healthcare is not the only sphere of government being impacted by online disinformation. In early February, attacks against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) surfaced due to false claims that the agency paid actors to travel to Ukraine and that news organizations like Politico, the BBC, and the New York Times received grant money from them. USAID has been added to the list of federal agencies that have been compromised and even thrown into upheaval.
If Americans cannot trust essential federal agencies due to disinformation, then there is nothing stopping people like Elon Musk from dismantling them. Our very democracy is at risk, an observation that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has noted in leaked audio of a private meeting. He stated that the Trump administration is making no attempts to protect democracy and is using disinformation to advance its goals. This accusation comes as no surprise when considering a study that reveals Republicans as being more likely to spread fake news, particularly during polarized elections because they have a stronger urge to win at all costs. Even if they are aware of its falsity, Republicans are more willing to disseminate disinformation to aid their party, whereas Democrats place more emphasis on equity over winning. In a nation where we don’t even know what is real anymore, shutting down fact-checks is a dangerous move. This development is building a false reality that Republican leaders can use to justify hurting countless marginalized communities. And make no mistake, this action was strategically planned from the beginning.
Moving Forward: Where We Find Ourselves and What We Can Do
It may seem like our situation is too deep a hole to dig ourselves out of. However, as college students, we have likely internalized that knowledge is a form of power. In particular, media literacy in school systems has been suggested to stem the surge of mis- and disinformation online. Media literacy teaches people how to determine the credibility of a source through various simple methods. As of December 2024, only 18 states mandate this education, but statistics show that 84% of adults are in favor of implementing it. And even if only 38% of adults have received this training, another poll showed that 65% of social media users believe election misinformation has increased since 2020. People are aware that this problem has only worsened in recent years; we just need to build off that consciousness by promoting media literacy and patiently educating our peers about sources of misinformation. This may feel like a band aid on a bullet wound, but teaching others how to navigate online spaces critically is still a crucial first step. We simply cannot live in a world where facts do not matter. So if those in power refuse to hold themselves to this standard, we must forge a society that values truth, integrity, and above all, education. It is the buried roots of our democracy that demand this immediate action.
PROTECTINGTRANSRIGHTS: GENDERBEYONDTHEBINARY
Just days into his presidency, Trump signed a series of executive orders threatening the LGBTQIA+ community, specifically attacking transgender individuals. On the day of his inauguration, the Trump administration signed an executive order to legally recognize only male and female, reinforcing the gender binary. The Trump administration’s attempt to confine gender fluidity has influenced the enactment of anti-trans bills including the termination of gender-affirming care for minors, the elimination of transgender athletes in sports, and the suspension of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. These orders have already led to significant repercussions in institutions that rely on federal funding. The military is discharging trans personnel, legal documentation is removing gender-affirming language, and educators who support gender expression among their students are being threatened with criminalization. These discriminatory orders are an attempt by the Trump administration to erase the existence of transgender and nonbinary individuals. However, gender nonconformity has always existed and, despite the current backlash, will continue to exist through optimism and resistance.
For a member of a political party that prides itself on constitutional rights, Trump’s anti-trans orders are dangerously unconstitutional when examined against the Supreme Court’s Bostock v Clayton, Georgia decision. Bostock protects any transgender or gay individual from employer discrimination in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Any prejudice against a certain demographic of people falls under unconstitutionally imposed harm. The Trump administration's executive orders infringe on bodily autonomy, the freedom to express oneself, and constitutional rights.
Trans rights are human rights!
Trans people exist!
Trans lives matter!
Interestingly enough, one of Trump’s executive orders even claims, “Invalidating the true and biological category of ‘woman’ improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing long-standing, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept.”
Defining gender as a social concept raises the question, “Can a social concept be banned?” While the Trump administration seems to believe so, erasing gender-fluid language does not erase gender fluidity. Therefore, while government officials are threatening the legal rights of gender nonconforming individuals, “banning” the social construct of gender is effectively impossible. Trans people will always exist.
Furthermore, queer and feminist theorist Judith Butler has argued that even what the Trump administration defines as “biological sex” exists as a social construct. They claim that the social conventions of gender are so ingrained within society that they affect our perception of sex. Butler proposed the concept of gender as a performance suggesting that gender shaped by culture and society is expressed through behavior, clothing, and speech, which can be further applied to sex. According to Butler, sex is not biological but a materialization of gendered cultural norms that manifest themselves in the body through gender performance. Language influences our understanding of gender, manifesting in the materialization of gender norms, making even biological sex a social construct subject to cultural change. Since Butler’s evidence suggests that sex is a social construct, the Trump administration's attempt to replace “gender” with biological “sex” in executive orders against trans people will not persist, given that sex as a social construct is capable of change and existing fluidly in society.
Anti-trans fear tactics are used to dehumanize transgender and non-binary people with false allegations of violence and crime using mirror propaganda, a projection tactic that involves accusing others of the very actions being committed. For example, the media promotes a myth that the trans community is silencing anti-trans opponents. Here, the anti-trans rhetoric that pleads silencing is actively being advertised, demonstrating a performative contradiction. Despite the fact that trans individuals are statistically more likely to be the victims of crime, they continuously face false accusations, oftentimes before facts are even known. In the Madison school shooting of December 2024, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones accused the suspect of being trans in a social media post on X. The claim was based on unfounded evidence, but with over 3.4 million followers the post managed to gain significant attention and circulated in conservative media. This recurring attempt to unjustly connect trans people to crime is a tactic inherently rooted in fear. Overcoming this fear by providing accurate information and avoiding biased media is important for creating greater inclusivity towards gender nonconformity.
BLACK,BLUE,ANDSTILL INVISIBLE:AMERICA’SBLINDSPOT ONINTIMATEPARTNER
VIOLENCE(IPV)
In 2023, the World Health Organization reported that police recorded a form of domestic abuse every 40 seconds. These numbers are alarming on their own, but for Black women, the reality behind the statistics is even more devastating. African American women experience some of the highest rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the United States and face the greatest risk of being killed by a partner.
Despite the scale of this crisis, conversations about IPV rarely center on Black women. Even as movements like Black Lives Matter, Say Her Name, and the Me Too Movement have pushed racial and gender justice into the mainstream, the specific dangers Black women face in abusive relationships are still pushed to the margins.
This neglect is not new. Since slavery, violence against Black women has been normalized, dismissed, and ignored. Historically, African Americans were treated as property rather than people. Still, between the two genders, women faced another level of physical, sexual, and mental exploitation within their partnerships, leaving them legally unprotected from violence in both public and private life. Disregard for their safety is not a recent development but a direct continuation of this legacy.
During the Jim Crow era, as domestic violence services began to emerge, Black women were routinely denied access to shelters and legal protections. Even during the women's rights movements of the 20th century, the domestic violence services created prioritized the needs of white middleclass women, forcing Black women to rely on their own networks of survival. Over time, that exclusion grew into a larger systemic pattern that still fails to recognize Black women as victims worth protecting.
Today, that same neglect shows up in courtrooms and police stations where Black women seeking help are met with suspicion or outright hostility. Even when they turn to law enforcement for protection, they often face dangerous consequences. Harmful stereotypes that portray Black women as angry or aggressive contribute to victims being misidentified as perpetrators. These stereotypes are rooted in slavery, where Black women were framed as inherently strong, unfeminine, and immune to victimization. That racist framing continues to inform public perception.
Research and data reveal a repeated narrative: Black women are more likely to be arrested during domestic violence calls, even when they are the ones seeking help. In dual-arrest cases, Black women are disproportionately criminalized, leaving them punished for their abuse. This criminalization does not just discourage reporting; it traps women in violent situations, forcing them to choose between staying silent and risking arrest. In the moments when they need support the most, Black women are left with little faith that the system will work in their favor.
Stories of Black women killed by abusive partners rarely make national headlines, while cases involving white women dominate the news cycle. This lack of coverage is not just about publicity it shapes public perception. Historically, violence against Black women has been erased from public narratives, whether through ignoring the sexual violence of slavery, the lynchings of Black women during Reconstruction, or the everyday abuses of segregation. Today, that same erasure persists in a media system that fails to tell their stories.
When IPV is framed as something that happens primarily to white women, it becomes easier to ignore how it devastates Black communities. This results in a cycle where fewer resources, policies, and protections are put in place for Black women, reinforcing the perception that their safety is less of a priority.
Even when perpetrators are held accountable, the legal system communicates a troubling message about whose lives are valued. Research shows that men who kill Black women receive lighter sentences than those who kill white women. This sentencing gap is more than just a statistic; it reflects a broader disregard for violence against Black women. The disparity is not new. Since the earliest days of the U.S. legal system, crimes against Black women have been met with indifference from courts ignoring violence against enslaved women to judges issuing light punishments for the murder of Black women during Jim Crow. When the justice system consistently minimizes these crimes, it allows the cycle of IPV-related homicides to continue unchecked.
Research shows that many Black women turn to churches, neighborhood networks, and family connections first when seeking safety, finding these spaces more understanding of the cultural and racial dynamics involved in IPV. Family and friend networks become essential safety nets when legal or social services are unhelpful or even dangerous. They often provide the first line of defense, offering emergency housing, childcare, and transportation without involving the police or relying on state systems. This reliance on informal support is not new. Black mutual aid dates back to the 18th century, originally formed to cover burial costs, medical care, and housing during slavery and Jim Crow.
During segregation, as shelters and legal protections continued to exclude Black women, mutual aid groups quietly stepped in to provide the resources the state refused to offer. Today, these traditions of collective care continue through mutual aid networks that help survivors access food, rent assistance, and other basic needs as they escape abusive environments.
Faith-based organizations also play a critical role in protecting Black women from IPV. Historically, Black churches have served as spiritual and physical sanctuaries, offering tangible support during times of crisis. During the Great Migration, churches provided shelter for women fleeing not just racial violence but domestic abuse as well, creating networks of safety in an era where there were no formal resources available.
“Many Black women turn to churches when seeking safety”
Beyond meeting immediate needs, Black churches often provide counseling rooted in shared cultural and spiritual values, which many survivors find more meaningful and effective than mainstream services. Through these community-driven efforts, Black women can seek safety and healing in environments prioritizing their dignity, survival, and well-being.
The media shapes how the world perceives itself. As a result, it is fair to claim that the way people understand IPV involving Black women and men is deeply influenced by what the world has already decided to be true about them. For generations, harmful stereotypes, sensationalized entertainment, and selective media coverage have controlled how Black women’s experiences with IPV are presented or more accurately, ignored. These messages not only influence how the public views Black women, but they also shape how Black women see themselves, their relationships, and the type of mistreatment they are expected to tolerate.
One of the most damaging stereotypes promoted by the media is the idea of the strong Black woman. Black women are frequently portrayed as overly resilient, emotionally detached, and aggressive, as if experiencing pain is just part of who they are. This narrative is not limited to IPV. It shows up in healthcare, education, and every other system, reducing them to simplified roles instead of acknowledging them as full human beings. In the context of IPV, this stereotype convinces the public that Black women are built to handle extreme suffering, which leads people to take their abuse less seriously. Research shows that these stereotypes dehumanize Black women and create a lack of empathy for their experiences with IPV.
Ente spec suffe mess these stand relati Conc relati
culture, making harmful
en view themselves and te a belief system where his does not happen by they become difficult to
Beyond individual songs or films, there is a larger cultural pattern of idolizing dysfunction in Black relationships. The media rewards stories that focus on conflict and instability. Healthy, peaceful relationships are treated as unrealistic or boring. In contrast, relationships filled with chaos and hardship are praised as passionate and meaningful. These stories reinforce the idea that Black women are valuable only when they endure. Their worth becomes measured by how much they can survive and how much pain they are willing to carry.
While the entertainment industry promotes these harmful ideas, the news media fails to provide the necessary balance. When Black women are harmed or killed by intimate partners, these cases often receive little to no coverage. Similar cases involving white women dominate national headlines and drive public conversations for weeks. In contrast, stories about Black women are ignored or quietly dismissed.
This silence sends a clear message that violence against Black women is not a
the end goal. Thriving, o end IPV against Black making space for Black t without fear. Through l change, that future is
On March 14th, 2025, nine members of the Democratic Party joined House Republicans to end debate on a “cloture vote” and advance a Republican spending bill to final vote, where it would inevitably be met with success due to the Republican-majority House and Senate. The bill, amongst other things, would wipe 1 billion dollars from the local budget of Washington, DC, in the middle of the spending cycle, and would cut critical social services from America’s most needy. Chuck Schumer, who serves as the minority party leader, noted that this bill would inevitably embolden Republicans to make more cuts to the federal budget— which are happening regardless of a government shutdown and saw the spending bill as a path to meaningfully compromise with Republicans to determine how to best fund the government through the next cycle. Schumer’s decision, which came hours after he swore to vote no on the bill, reflects what I believe is one of the most prevalent issues within America today: the belief that both sides of an issue are always important, regardless of what they are, and that compromise is inherently always a better option than resistance. Nowhere is this principle more evident than on the American college campus.
\
Political polarization. Fighting between the parties. People not knowing how to talk to each other meaningfully anymore. Walk into the classroom of a small liberal arts college and these will be the issues that students are most concerned about, regardless of the impending authoritarianism, racism, climate change, and violence against trans people that I would all argue are far more important than such issues. For the past four years that I’ve been a student at Richmond, I’ve watched as students attempt to grapple with this seemingly large problem of balancing both sides. There is an insistence that every issue, no matter how small or innocuous, must be perfectly balanced, with an ear ensuring that all perspectives are shared and valued. But frankly, I have become sick of playing for both sides. I’m tired of pretending that conservative values have a deserving place at institutions that pride themselves on being beacons of progress and innovation. I’m tired of pretending that there are still moderate Republicans who reluctantly continue to vote red despite being disgusted with Donald Trump’s actions, ashamed with themselves as they do. And I’m tired of colleges, in an attempt to not have themselves labelled as “too liberal” or “too woke” protecting speakers and guests who purposefully buck these values, sometimes at the cost of preserving intellectual rigor.
“Hear them out!”
To be clear: this is not an anti-freedom of speech piece, nor am I suggesting that political polarization isn’t something that exists. I think that it does exist but frankly, I have no qualms about people attempting to distance themselves, and viscerally reject, a party that platforms convicted rapists, pedophiles, and Nazis. I am not going to sit here and write an article where I am advocating that individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities, should have to sit and break bread with people who defend the platforming of those individuals by the Republican party. Rather, in this piece I am arguing that with the rise of authoritarianism in the United States and ultra-conservatism, colleges and universities must begin to take an active stance against conservative values. This begins with the decision to not platform such voices, and to double down on the reputation of colleges as being beacons of liberal thought and progressive action.
The College Campus,Free Speech,and Conservative Speakers
In recent years there has been a growing tension between three related and interconnected factors on American college campuses: the Constitutionally protected right of free speech, hate speech, and language that students consider to not be inclusive. Particularly with growing controversy around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since October of 2023, colleges have made a concerted effort to crack down on offensive and non-inclusive speech, regardless of whether it is protected by the Constitution or not. Yet what is interesting is that these arguments regarding who has the right to say what generally tend to revolve around students, rather than invited speakers or guests, and I find this to be problematic. Students are Constitutionally entitled to make statements that might cause controversy or offense to particular groups (though the morality and ethics of this principle can certainly be debated). There seems to be more of a focus on censoring students and ensuring that their speech aligns with purported campus values rather than the speakers that colleges choose to allow on their campuses. In particular, if colleges are going to continue to frame themselves as advocates for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and make a stance towards encouraging progress on these fronts, banning speakers who are inconsistent with the mission of the university should not be considered anti free-speech— it should be considered a necessary path towards upholding these values.
In the past several years there have been a multitude of protests that have arisen across the country in response to conservative speakers. Students at Pitt State protested against several anti-transgender speakers including Riley Gaines, the far right’s sweetheart who protests against the inclusion of transgender women in women’s sports (and it should be noted that Gaines came in fifth place at the swimming competition where she competed against a trans swimmer, with several fellow cisgender women beating her). Students at SUNY-Albany protested against a far right podcaster. Students at Cornell held pro-LGBTQ+ vigils after their campus’ branch of College Republicans invited Michael Knowles, a host on Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire media outlet. In all cases, I applaud these students for their courage to stand against these speakers and the notion that these ideas should be normalized, especially on the college campus. While in these particular examples these individuals were invited by student groups, the passivity of the collegiate administration to allow them to speak, and in some cases even protecting them against student protestors, should be met with confrontation. What does it say to trans students to have a speaker who believes that they should be “eradicated,” in the words of one conservative speaker? How does this advance the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion that colleges supposedly purport?
Further, speakers should be brought onto campus as a way to intellectually engage and move students forward, and in many such cases conservative speakers fail to meet this mark. For this, I have to look no further than the University of Richmond, which brought conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Barton Swaim onto campus as a part of its Gary McDowell Institute Speaker series. I attended the conversation as part of a class assignment, and was appalled when Swaim began to make a number of anti-science remarks, including asserting that COVID-19 quarantines in March of 2020 were unnecessary for most of the population. When confronted by multiple individuals in the audience, including students and medical professionals, Swaim doubled down, stating that it was merely his own opinion. What did students get out of listening to an anti-science speaker who believes that his own opinion is greater than that of global health organizations which stated that COVID-19 quarantines were necessary to prevent greater death and spread of the disease? What profound lesson is learned from witnessing a man believe that his own arrogance is greater than that of a global pandemic? Promoting conservative speakers, more often than not, contributes to the spread of misinformation and anti-intellectualism. To present another example, Riley Gaines has spread a number of anti-transgender myths, including the idea that trans female athletes who compete are merely men who “disguise” themselves as women to win championships. If colleges once again purport themselves to be centers of innovation and intellectual rigor, why invite speakers who have a repressive and ignorant stance on issues?
The College Campus,Free Speech,and Conservative Speakers
I understand that there is the potential objection to this argument— “If colleges can prevent student organizations from inviting speakers if they don’t align with the stated values of their institution, wouldn’t that begin a slippery slope? Couldn’t they use this logic and apply it to liberal speakers as well?” The answer is that this already happens, and it receives far less outrage than in the rare instance when colleges do decide to decline a conservative speaker. A group of law students at the University of California, Berkeley, drew sharp criticism from the Board of Trustees for failing to align with the “central mission” of the institution when it stated that it would not invite proIsrael and Zionist speakers on behalf of their organization. A Department of Education investigation was opened under allegations of anti-semitism over the matter. But the central issue with college campuses’ refusal to disinvite conservative speakers is that it often exposes the sheer hypocrisy of campuses who purport to create an environment of inclusion and belonging. If this is truly the mission of the college, as well as promoting intellectual engagement, why invite speakers that promote hate and seek to bring nothing of intellectual value to the campus community? Why should we platform individuals who often promote dangerous ideologies which actively harm communities through both verbal and physical violence? The answer is that we shouldn’t— regardless of political ideology. Conservatives have made themselves martyrs of the American higher education system, believing that their values are suppressed, diminished, and forgotten. In reality, they are often protected more than any other group. And the point stands: what purpose do these discussions serve? Do they serve to uplift and promote intellectual engagement, or simply serve as another platform to promote hateful rhetoric? What is their true function?
During a time in which the right wing is growing more powerful and continues to permeate every single aspect of the American psyche, the college campus may serve as the last bastion of progressive thought, action, and protest. Its position must be understood— and administrators must make an active effort to ensure it remains as close to its purported ideal as it can be.
ROOTSOFINSANITY: UNSUSTAINABLEBOURGEOISE MODERNLIFEANDASINCERE REFLECTION
The situation is worsening. Whether it is the arrest of two college students, Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, or the open collusion between landlords of the internet “public” space and the overhanging orange throne, everything seems to be heading in an insensible and manic direction and the life as we know it is at risk. That image of a bearable and elegantly bored life that carries the optimism from the ever-changing development is now gone. A swamp-like, unsettled Cthulhu of *something* emerges from the vast land of America.
Or, to be honest, this *thing* has always been there. Global capitalism has always been there since the end of the Cold War. Modern bourgeois life is based on global capitalist exploitation, and this system is rapidly disintegrating, exposing its unsustainability. Trump is not an anomaly but a concentrated explosion of accumulated conflicts in global capitalism, and it h ld ’ b d f h f l
“Sold
and shipped by Amazon’
“Infinite Economic Growth”
“The good old days”
TechnoFeudalism
I can not elaborate on how exactly Trump is a part of the whole structure, and I am more interested in explaining our nostalgia for the good old days before him. However, it’s still necessary to point out the exploitation we lived in by giving several examples. Our material life is dominated by techno-feudalism and its embodiments like Amazon. The producer, intermediary, and consumer all rely on those open platforms and their logistics system. Just like what Yanis Varoufakis suggests in Techno-feudalism, they are the modern landlords, taking around 8% to 15% of the selling as commission, with the US marketplace sales in 2024 of 325 billion dollars. Moreover, Amazon has been robbing small businesses of their ideas, which are incorporated into “Sold and Shipped by Amazon.” Jeffrey Bezos isn’t a newcomer tyrant, as most commodities on Amazon are produced in third-world countries. Oligarchs’ greed extends beyond the material base, as they are also taking over internet public spaces. With the over-abundant information on the internet, it is these algorithms who get to decide what we see. Furthermore, algorithms now produce our desires by shaping the public space we live in and learn from. This isn’t new as well, but our fear arises only after the public demonstration of its power during the election. The system is devastating. It’s ever-growing, and it cannot live without engulfing substances, just like the stock market. I can go on forever about aspects like bureaucracy, the health industry, and the prison-industrial complex that regulates our body and mind, but the vital point I’d like to make is that the roots of our fear and grief predate Trump.
This Cthulhu grows and rises from the swamps on the East Coast, the same place where colonizers landed, but it is not until now that it reveals itself. With a restless summer just around the corner, the Trump administration, in its insanity, can’t be a better manifestation of this Cthulhu. The mask of humanity falls from the Cthulhu of global capitalism, as it has to take it off to consume and devour, even just for one second. People’s discontent accumulated, and the US-centered global capitalism world order is being challenged. Therefore, to sustain itself, the Cthulhu needs to resort to undisguised brutality. If courageous enough to stare back, you can see the fear and power in its eyes. It is a structure that extends into every aspect of life, and the abovementioned modern-life image is deeply embedded in this system.
Bluntly speaking, to face this root is to face the blood on our hands. The modern-life image is based on the hopelessness of others; the only difference is that it’s now coming after us. The facts are evident, from the immigration workers who do the cleaning and bake-kitchen in the US, the women on the assembly line 12 hours every day in East Asia, to the youth in deserted African villages whose only value lies in their bodies for the mining industry. The Silicon Valley tech giants’ gig economy is the evolutionary leap from Taylorism to neuro-capitalism by upgrading the physical discipline of female workers in East Asia to the cognitive exploitation of Internet users around the world. There are many analyses, yet the existence of this monstrous system is undeniable and undebatable. The bourgeois modern life we live is a direct product of this system.
While missing our modern life and “democracy” is totally understandable and normal, we need to acknowledge such a fact. It’s hypocritical to value “democracy” only when it’s acting in one’s interest. After all, Trump is democratically and lawfully elected to bring down “democracy” and the legal system. Trump is a product of the structure’s attempt to keep living despite its unsustainability. To realize the roots of Trump is to realize that what modern bourgeois life promised isn’t sound at all. Therefore, in our own selfinterest and to honor whatever good faith and beautiful hope we have in terms of complete romantic love for humanity, we should resist and revolt against the structure and the “modern life.”
To acknowledge the grinding system is not to discredit our everyday life but to object to the nostalgia for that hypocritical modern life and empower the shivering livelihood. Even with such a twisted root, we still persist with all the hope and tenderness in the world and still find all the sweetest and most courageous fellow human beings. The structure is forced to show unmitigated brutality to cling to the persistence of itself, but we know from these tiny, gentle moments that new lives will prevail. These moments are the roots of a better world.
More of our creative design team’s vision boards!
CONTRIBUTORS
Writers
Grace Berry
Christian Herald
Gelila Heruy
Myanna Hightower
Tyler Morales
Kristine Nguyen
Walter Ostrowski
Isabel Vintimilla
Executive Board
Myanna Hightower
Walter Ostrowski
Sydney Dwyer
Kristine Nguyen
Natalia Jung
Jeffrey Yao
Creative Design Team Cover Photo
Sukie Weiner
Sydney Dwyer
Christian Herald
Myanna Hightower
Walter Ostrowski
Shelby Richards
Jessy Taylor
Sukie Weiner
Editor’s Note: To protect privacy, ensure freedom of speech, and emphasize our collective unity regarding the issues we write about, Counterculture does not use individual articles, instead including a contributors list at the end of each issue.