by Kaelynd Brouillette ’29 on September 25, 2025

---

Opinion

---

I don’t let myself skip class. In fact, I usually think there is little point in doing so. However, I was ready to make an exception to my personal rule on the Friday before Columbus Day. Like many other students, I had made travel arrangements to go home that day, booking a flight in advance due to living significantly far away. Missing that one day of classes seemed like a small trade-off for spending extra time with my family, whom I had not seen since move-in day. What I did not anticipate was that my Development of Western Civilizations (DWC) professor had scheduled an in-class exam for that day. This exam is worth a significant portion of my grade, and I debated with myself over whether this was really my fault or not. After all, I was the one who decided I needed to go home and booked the flight. When I asked my professor if I could take the exam earlier, I was told that it was not an option.

This whole situation left me thinking about fairness. On the surface, the professor was not doing anything wrong, as this exam was scheduled, and I failed to take that into account when booking my flight. Nonetheless, when an exam falls right before a long weekend, it creates an almost unavoidable clash between academic obligations and the logistics of student life. For those of us who have to fly home, we know that it is not as easy to simply go home on a weekend, making us have to take advantage of the few three-day weekends we do have. Sometimes, that means we take a Friday off to optimize the little time we have with our families. In other words, it’s not just skipping class for “convenience,” it’s a matter of balancing our responsibilities as students with our lives beyond campus.

Providence College’s Student Congress recognizes how disruptive exam timing can be. That’s why it has passed legislation regulating the use of out-of-class assessments, as they place additional burdens on students’ time. However, since my DWC exam was during regular class time, it did not fall under the policy. Technically, no rules were broken. Still, it raises an important question: if the spirit of the legislation is to protect students from unfairly timed assessments, shouldn’t in-class exams scheduled right before breaks also be part of the conversation?

I want to be clear: this is not about blaming professors or attacking the administration. I get it. If you make an exception for one person, then you have to do it for everyone. Faculty have their own curriculum goals and deadlines, which unfortunately don’t always necessarily align with our goals and lives as students. From the perspective of a student who simply wants to see her family, these policies reflect the reality that our schedules don’t exist in a vacuum. A Friday exam is brutal enough as it is, especially the week leading up to a long weekend, but then it forces me, as well as many others facing the same issue, to make decisions about time, family, and whether taking the zero is worth it. 

Personally, this issue is bigger than just one DWC exam. It points to a broader gap between academic expectations and student realities. When we talk about fostering a supportive learning environment, we need to ask ourselves if policies, whether professor-specific or directly from Student Congress, account for the lived experiences of students, especially in moments where academic calendars collide with travel demands and family responsibilities. I believe that fairness isn’t just about following the letter of the policy, but honoring the spirit of what those policies are meant to do for the students. If PC can already recognize that timing matters when it comes to exams, maybe it’s time to broaden the scope and ask how we can make sure assessments are rigorous, without being unnecessarily burdensome? 

Although I still have not quite figured out what I am going to do about my situation yet, I do know that it is not unique. Plenty of long-distance students face the struggles of navigating travel and big exams before breaks. Fairness should not end at what the policies say, but truly working with students to take into account their realities and demands of college life. 

by Rachel Barter ’27 on September 25, 2025

---

Opinion

---

A Systematic Attack on Freedom of Speech

Recently in the United States, we have seen a vast number of attacks on freedom of speech from both political parties, most notably regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk earlier this month and the cancellation of both The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and, most recently, Jimmy Kimmel Live! 

Understandably so, Republicans and Democrats were both disgusted by the killing of Kirk and the attack on his freedom of speech, which was key to his career as a Republican advocate and debater. However, Democrats seem to be the only people to be disgusted by the cancellations of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel Live!, as well as other attacks on Democrats’ freedom of speech. 

In fact, Jimmy Kimmel Live! was cancelled because Kimmel made comments regarding conservatives’ responses to Kirk’s death and the investigation that followed. Kimmel said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” 

Kimmel’s comment was likely referring to Utah Governor Spencer Cox’s comments that the suspect, Tyler Robinson, had a “leftist ideology” and had also been in a romantic relationship with his roommate and alleged partner, who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. Cox’s inclusion of these comments makes me agree with Kimmel that investigators appear to be desperately trying to pin Kirk’s death on an out-of-control Democrat motivated by his alleged tie to the trans community, which demonstrates Republicans’ willingness to stretch the narrative to find a connection to the trans community.

It is also important to note Governor Cox made these remarks despite the reality that Robinson is a native Utah resident, is not registered to any political party, and grew up with conservative parents in St. George, a fast-growing conservative city defined by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thus, Kimmel’s comment did not attack Kirk at all; instead, it questioned the bias regarding the investigation of Kirk’s alleged shooter.

Whether I agree with Kimmel or not, I believe it is not appropriate to silence his speech. Just as the overwhelming conservative response to Kirk’s death demonstrated how many people think of gun violence as bad only when it affects someone they agree with and care about, the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live! highlights how some conservatives condone attacks on freedom of speech when it benefits them and their party. Furthermore, please note ABC decided to pull the program after an unusually threatening comment was made by the Federal Communications Commission’s chair.

The First Amendment is supposed to apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of their political views and who they would like to criticize, including the President of the United States. It was not meant to be revoked when public figures say things attacking the government or certain political parties. Hence, the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel Live!, despite how short it may have been, is extremely important; these two events are instances of our current administration taking creative liberty with the First Amendment by pressuring television networks to conform to the liking and opinions of President Donald Trump.

Additionally, it is essential that we, as college students, acknowledge these systematic attacks on freedom of speech and strive to combat them to preserve our right to free expression, which is not only crucial to our day-to-day lives but also vital for our education and the ability to have a well-rounded and informed understanding.

by Grace Pappadellis ’29 on September 18, 2025

---

Opinion

---

Growing up, my mother only partially peeled the potatoes before mashing them, mixing garlic, velvety butter, and countless aromatic herbs into a big silver pot. My father grilled salmon and steaks, leaving the edges crispy for me because he knew I liked it that way. Broccoli, brussels sprouts, caesar salad with homemade dressing, thick, toasted garlic bread, and heaping spoonfuls of decadent gravy. These are all foods familiar to me, foods I adore to this day—yet upon my arrival to college, I realized I’ve taken them for granted. 

My connection to food is one that I directly relate to my family. I grew up with the privilege of fresh food, home-cooked meals, and parents who had the freedom to cook whatever they wanted for my brother and me. Coming home from school, practice, or even a long day, I knew I would have a warm, inviting meal waiting for me on the table. 

Arriving at college, I knew I would be homesick, as I was always close with my family and there were plenty of aspects of home worth longing for. I had been looking forward to college for what felt like my entire life. I was thrilled to meet new people, learn new things, and create my own routine. My mother and I consistently kept in touch, and her reports of family dinners made me miss home even more. As my mother described the baked sweet potatoes lathered in butter, tender slices of grilled chicken, and piles of steamed vegetables, my mouth watered and my heart ached for home. 

One night, soon after move-in, my roommate and I, both food-lovers, took a trip to Ray Dining Hall. We were hoping to find some sort of replication of home. We filled our plates with every type of food you could imagine, all at our fingertips. To our surprise, we enjoyed all of it. The chicken, the quesadillas, the burrito bowls, the pasta—each day, a new flavor adventure filled with excitement before every lunch and dinner. Ray Dining Hall quickly became our meeting spot, a place for laughs, deep conversations, and much-needed quality time. All of our friends gathered, tried new foods, shared stories, and soon, we had our own family dinners. 

No matter what food you are eating, food is nourishment, it is enjoyment, it is comfort. Food is warmth, memories, and revitalization. Food is more than just something you can taste. You feel the food, you crave flavors, your favorite flavors, and when you eat that food, suddenly you’re satiated. You are nurtured and sustained. 

I urge you to try new foods, do laps around Ray, and find all your favorites. Fill your plate, even if you don’t finish all of it. Find your piece of home, even if it is not food-related. Now, although my friends and I are a mere two weeks into the semester, we find ourselves enjoying Ray food and, as much as possible, setting up long dinners together each night. Even though we aren’t explicitly stating our intentions, I know we all want to simulate the feeling of a family dinner. Not everything about Ray may make you feel like you’re at home, but there is no restriction on one place being home; home doesn’t even have to be a place. Home is your group of friends, your favorite sweatshirt, and the music playlist you made before entering college. Home is your dorm room, filled with your favorite snacks and all the pictures of your hometown friends scattered across the stark walls. Home is your hobbies, a good book, and a long walk. Most importantly, an immense piece of home is food. Eat until you are full, even uncomfortably full, and let that energy rush through you, sustaining your body. I heard it may even kill your homesickness.

by Kaelynd Brouillette ’29 on September 18, 2025

---

Opinion

---

Nationally and On Campus

On Wednesday, Sept. 10, the illusion of free speech in America was shattered. Charlie Kirk, a conservative political activist whose messaging was aimed at the youth of America, was shot and ultimately killed in what I deem a political assassination. Many disagreed with Kirk’s strong and sometimes controversial opinions, but in no way does that mean he should have died because of them. Not only was this event a tragedy, but it was also a turning point for America and for how we think about speech and political disagreement. 

For all the weight we give the First Amendment, it feels less like a guarantee of free speech and more like a guarantee of conflict and violence. This is not just about one man, but rather about whether college campuses can be considered safe places for debate and disagreement. College campuses are historically supposed to be institutions that allow free thought to flourish, and spaces where students can express ideas, hear perspectives they disagree with, and form independent opinions based on their perceptions. 

Reality on campus, and in society in general, is much messier. Many students claim they believe in free speech, but when met with controversial views, the instinct is to “cancel” them, which effectively suppresses our freedom. Social media acts as a catalyst for this problem. Platforms popularly used on college campuses, such as YikYak, Instagram, or X (formerly Twitter), turn disagreement into mob shaming where free speech is not met with dialogue but with hostility and ridicule. 

The Kirk incident forces us to ponder a deeper question: what happens when words are no longer met with words, but with intimidation, threats, and even outward violence? On college campuses, free speech now carries a price tag, ranging from at best, backlash, to at worst, life itself. The fact is, PC is not immune. 

While our campus may not face violence on the scale of the Kirk assassination, the underlying problem is still here, simmering beneath the surface. Apps like YikYak, which thrive on anonymity, create spaces where hostility and hate can spread unchecked. Instead of encouraging honest debate, they often promote mockery, hate, and dehumanization. I’ve seen firsthand how, in the context of Kirk’s death, conversations on our campus have not always leaned towards respectful disagreement, but rather snide comments and outright hate. This doesn’t just poison our school community, it undermines the very freedom of speech we claim to value. If we want PC to be a place where free thought can flourish, then we cannot afford to dismiss this culture as harmless online venting or say that these snide comments are normal. 

The death of Kirk is a national tragedy, but the lessons it forces upon us cannot only be heard at a national level. Free speech isn’t some lofty ideal we only talk about in theory, but rather something that plays out day after day in our classrooms, our group chats, and on social media. The right to free speech means nothing if our culture punishes anyone who dares to use it. Here at PC, we cannot pretend we’re immune.

by Mariel Surprenant ’26 on September 18, 2025

---

Opinion

---

On Monday, I started feeling sick. On Tuesday, I tested positive for COVID-19. On Wednesday, I went to urgent care. Not once during my illness did I consider going to the Student Health Center here at Providence College. Why? Because they don’t give doctor’s notes. 

The main page of the PC Student Health Center’s website reads, “The Providence College Student Health Center, along with most college health centers nationwide, does not provide verification of illness or notes to students requesting a medical excuse for classes or exams.” This Student Health Center policy is harmful to students and their health by forcing ill students to leave campus to obtain the costly medical care they need. 

During my recent illness, my professors were very understanding of my condition. However, throughout my three years here at PC, I’ve had numerous professors who have not been. Especially during exam season, professors will not excuse your absence without a written doctor’s note. I even had one professor who claimed that all absences were “inexcusable,” and even an absence with a doctor’s note would result in a docking of your grade. Therefore, when a student is sick enough to miss class, it is more than understandable that they would like a doctor’s note to prevent their health from negatively affecting their grades. But where to go? Not the Student Health Center. 

Instead, students must find a doctor off-campus willing to see them. At PC, where 91 percent of students hail from outside of Rhode Island, this is not as easy as going home to your own doctor. Most doctors will not accept patients who are not their own, so instead, students are forced to walk into urgent cares or emergency rooms around the city. This puts a strain on the healthcare systems residents use, while neglecting to fully utilize the resources students pay for at PC. These alternatives are often costly and differ in their acceptance of student insurance plans. For example, I recently paid $350 for an urgent care visit in Rhode Island. Low-income and out-of-state students are especially burdened by these unnecessary healthcare costs. 

Furthermore, sick students must find their own way to access care, rather than simply walking across campus. Underclassmen at PC are not permitted to have cars, leaving them with limited options when illness strikes. Relying on an Uber or public transportation not only poses logistical challenges, but also risks spreading infection to others. Even upperclassmen face uncertainty, as having a car on campus is not guaranteed, making off-campus healthcare access unreliable for many. 

The best option for student health and well-being would be the ability to go to the Student Health Center for both healthcare and an accompanying doctor’s note. The Student Health Center, a service we pay for as part of our over $65,000 tuition bill, should be able to provide the care that students need, when they need it, and as they need it. As learning is rightly one of students’ main priorities, the Student Health Center here at PC needs to be able to provide doctor’s notes to the students it promises to care for.

by Anonymous ’27 on September 18, 2025

---

Opinion

---

A Wake-Up Call For Conservatives on the Epidemic of Gun Violence

Last week, on Wednesday, Sept. 10, Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist credited with helping to mobilize America’s youth to vote for President Trump, was shot in the neck and killed while holding a debate with college students at Utah Valley University. Kirk’s death reverberated across the nation and has already made a huge impact on the country’s politics. Across social media, people have been posting pictures of Kirk to remember and pray for him and his family, as he leaves behind his wife and two young daughters.

Unfortunately, Kirk’s death has sparked further animosity between the two major political parties of our country. In particular, I have been struck by some conservatives’ claims that the Democratic Party as a whole is happy about Kirk’s death and is celebrating it. Although I cannot speak for the entirety of the Democratic Party, I have observed across the board that Democrats are not happy that Kirk was killed and we are saddened to witness another instance of gun violence. I believe that nobody deserves to be murdered, no matter their political views, and I feel for Kirk’s family, friends, and followers who are mourning his loss.

From what I have observed, conservatives often value their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment over many other issues and rights, such as gun violence deaths. In fact, on April 5, 2023, Kirk said, “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” If only it were that simple.

As I mentioned, when Kirk died, millions of Americans mourned his loss and are currently distraught. Yet, the same people who Kirk radicalized to view deaths of gun violence as simply “unfortunate” are now expressing empathy and deep sorrow for a man who would view his own death as a worthy cost to keep gun rights in our country. This time, the gun violence death was personal for a lot of conservatives, and they are feeling a hint of what the family and friends of gun violence victims face every day of their lives. This is why I believe Kirk’s death should serve as an eye-opener for people who do not wish to change our laws regarding firearms in this country. 

I also want to call attention to the fact that none of the other victims of gun violence this year or in the last few years have received such an outpouring of love and sadness over their loss. For instance, President Donald Trump ordered all flags to be lowered to half-staff until sunset on Sunday, Sept. 14 in the wake of Kirk’s death, but he has not done this for other instances of gun violence such as the assassination of Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman, a Democrat. Moreover, Kirk’s death highlighted the disproportionate love and compassion for celebrities and prominent figures holding weight and more power, especially in death. It has called into question why many people who posted about Kirk have not posted or prayed for the victims of the many school shootings and other incidents of gun violence just this year. 

For instance, on the day that Kirk was shot and killed, there was a school shooting in Denver, Colorado. Yet the majority of people who posted for Kirk on social media did not post for the children who were injured, nor did they post when Rep. Hortman and her husband were killed in another politically motivated shooting. I want us to respond to every such shooting with the same compassion and prayers for the victims, whether we knew of them or not, and regardless of whether our political views aligned with theirs. The silence that has plagued many conservatives during other shootings must be recognized and criticized.

Perhaps if we didn’t ignore the shootings that did not affect us directly, then everyone could recognize the significance and urgency of gun violence in the U.S. I hope that after the heartbreaking impact of Kirk’s death, we can all agree that we have a serious problem on our hands that needs to be addressed rather than ignored because it is the so-called cost of the Second Amendment. If it were your family member or friend who was killed in another instance of gun violence, then you would take action to stop this tragedy from happening to other people. Unfortunately, if we all wait until gun violence affects us directly to recognize the true magnitude of it, then it will be too little too late.

As college students living on or right off of a college campus, it is important that we acknowledge the problem of gun violence in the U.S., considering schools are, unfortunately, likely places for violence. Now that we are of age to vote and create a political footprint, we need to do our part to protect not only ourselves but everyone in the U.S.

by Courtney Wight ’26 on September 18, 2025

---

Opinion

---

As I enter my final year at Providence College, I hope to leave a mark on this campus and encourage all those at PC to treat our home with care and dignity. Every weekend, I am discouraged and disgusted by the amount of litter left on our campus. Our campus does not magically look this clean all the time. There are hardworking individuals at UG2 who work tirelessly to ensure our campus, including residence halls, academic buildings, and grounds, are spotless.

Students need to start treating all of campus as their own home because for many, including myself, it is home. Over the past few years, this campus has become a home for me as I have found a favorite place to study, my favorite bench to call my parents from, and even my usual table at Ray. Additionally, this campus is not just our home. There are various forms of wildlife who may be harmed by littering, including squirrels, birds, and bunnies.

It is with this in mind that I ask all returning students to remember that freshmen are watching and modeling their actions after yours. Show the new members of the Friar family how we treat our campus by ensuring no litter ends up on the grass or in our plants. There are tons of trash bins throughout campus where students can dispose of their trash. Another option is simply to hold onto it until there is a trash can where you can properly dispose of it. There is no reason to be throwing one’s trash onto the ground. 

Finally, students need to hold each other accountable. If you see another student litter, call them out or pick up the trash and properly throw it away. These actions will show other students, particularly freshmen, that littering is unacceptable on our campus.

Would you litter in your own yard or kitchen at home? No, because most people understand that if they don’t clean up after themselves, someone else ultimately will. Our campus is not people’s personal trash can. PC’s campus is beautiful and is supposed to be a welcoming place, home to not only current students but to future students and alumni. Going forward, I urge my fellow students to start noticing the trash left on campus and improve their own behavior to ensure our campus is clean.

by Mariel Surprenant on November 18, 2024

---

Opinion

---

Young Men for Trump, Young Women for Harris

While tapping through Instagram stories on the morning of Nov. 6, I noticed a trend. With some exceptions, mostly men were reposting pro-Trump posts and mostly women were reposting pro-Harris posts. Looking back, the data from the 2024 presidential election aligns with the trend I observed on my own social media feed. Young men aged 18 through 29 shifted 28 percentage points to the right from 2020, voting for Donald Trump by a 13-point margin. Young women also shifted to the right, but remained far enough left to vote for Kamala Harris by a margin of 18 percent. This trend begs the question; why was there such a large gap between the voting behaviors of young men and young women?

Why the majority of young women voted for Harris rather than Trump seems obvious. Harris promised to focus on several issues that directly impact women: abortion, reproductive healthcare, childcare, domestic violence, and protection in the workplace from gender-based discrimination. Trump, on the other hand, has been found liable for sexual assault, accused of rape, and has bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy.” Policy-wise, he’s promised to decrease women’s access to abortion and reproductive healthcare, and will allow the current realities of childcare, domestic violence, and workplace discrimination to remain unchanged. Young women’s motivation for voting for Harris and against Trump appears evident. But what about young men?

Policy-wise, many of the men who voted for Trump cite concerns like the economy and immigration, but these concerns exist for women too. The difference is that the stakes of a Trump presidency are much lower for men. Neither candidate plans to regulate their body and their reproductive system, so young men have the luxury of voting on the other issues that matter to them.

Another major reason that men have cited as a reason for voting Republican is simply their dislike of Harris and Democrats. Disregarding any possible sexist origins of these claims, these young men are voicing the reality that the Democratic Party has failed to appeal to them. As Dave Portnoy expressed in a three-minute Instagram reel posted the morning after the election, the “moral superiority” of the Democratic Party turned a lot of potential voters off. Within the Harris-Walz campaign, many young men could not see themselves or the policies they cared about reflected in the campaign’s messaging. Trump, on the other hand, appealed directly to the people young men idolize. For example, Trump has been endorsed or promoted by Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, the Nelk Boys, Theo Von, Elon Musk, Adin Ross, and the Paul brothers.

The recent overall sentiment from intellectuals and experts, like those at the Wall Street Journal, is that young men have “fallen behind” in terms of things like share of the labor market and education. Young men likely hear and feel that sentiment and reality, and as they look for a candidate to recognize their selfhood, masculinity, and their role as men. Trump arguably embodies and promotes some of the classic traits of masculinity, such as strength, assertiveness, and self-reliance. His blunt communication style, “self-made” origin story, and tough, “winner” personality appeal to what young men think masculinity embodies. 

Obviously, all young men did not vote for Trump, and all young women didn’t vote for Harris. In fact, according to NBC exit polls, 37 percent of young women aged 18 through 29 voted for Trump. In reality, there are many intersecting and complex reasons why a voter of a certain gender chooses to vote for a certain candidate. Nonetheless, the large gender gap between young voters represents a widening ideological gap between genders and their lived experiences. If the Democratic Party wants to avoid making the same mistakes in 2026 and 2028, they need to take notes from the Trump campaign and appeal to the country’s young men.

by Christina Charie '25 on October 16, 2024
Opinion Editor

---

Opinion

---

Why Femicide is Appearing in Your Feed Now

In the past month, Ugandan Olympian Rebecca Cheptegei died after her partner set her on fire in their home in Kenya. Unfortunately, Cheptegei’s death is not a unique occurrence in Kenya. She is one of at least 500 such incidents that have occurred since 2016 in Kenya, according to the United Nations. With recent high-profile cases of femicide and violence against women, there is new motivation to examine the context in which these situations have developed. 

Americans should be asking why we are only hearing about the systematic nature of these issues now. Certainly, Cheptegei’s status as an Olympic athlete contributes to international interest in her well-being, but the lack of media attention surrounding the systematic femicide occurring in Kenya reflects our “America First” mindset. 

I am sure everyone expected a writer versus a writer about the recent Presidential Debate in The Cowl. Surely, it has occupied most of my Instagram feed, from serious analysis of key issues to parody song remixes. Instead, I challenge us to consider that our occupation with domestic politics often sidelines international concerns. This is not meant to devalue the importance of domestic policies and elections. However, Americans often use rhetoric that suggests using time, tax dollars, and resources to help the women of another country is wasteful. Even if one does not claim to ascribe to the “America First” ideological leanings, not caring about the femicide in Kenya contributes to the lack of international awareness prevalent throughout American media. 

Cheptegei’s tragic death has not been getting the media attention it deserves because Americans are preoccupied with debates and elections. Candidates often suggest that it is time to address real issues that affect people globally. Cheptegei’s fate reflects a growing problem across the globe that should be addressed. Ignoring the situation because it occurred in a country that is not of primary importance to the U.S. further emphasizes an imperialist mindset, one that puts its own culture above all others globally. Giving the situation the time and attention it deserves does not mean the government initiates military involvement. But it’s time for us to acknowledge the situation and how greater public awareness can force unwilling actors to develop solutions. 

Even though Cheptegei’s death may seem far detached from American life, these attitudes have historically allowed the disregard for human life to rise among our cultural frameworks.