by Sam Silva ’28 on October 1, 2026

---

Opinion

---

1984, a novel by George Orwell, features the infamous Big Brother and totalitarian regime. 1984 highlights a country under mass surveillance, with its citizens having zero freedom due to constant watch. I cannot be the only person who has seen an abundance of articles about Flock cameras. If you have not heard about Flock Safety, let me give you some context. Flock cameras, more broadly known as LPR or ALPR cameras, which stands for automated license plate recognition, are sprouting up across the United States. A question has emerged from the rise of these cameras: are U.S. citizens being unlawfully watched? 

I want to start by highlighting two sides of this debate: supporters believe that Flock is a vital resource to stop violent crimes, whereas adversaries believe that Flock invades their privacy and infringes on their personal freedom. Both are warranted in their beliefs. While LPRs can be used to solve legitimate crimes, where is the line drawn for the average citizen?

Earlier this month, a football player from UMass Dartmouth was stabbed right in Providence. Flock was used to track the car of Chukuwnonoso Uzoma Eze, another UMass student, out of the parking lot where the altercation happened. The license plate readers were a pivotal force in locating Eze, and he was eventually taken into custody by Massachusetts police. On the other hand, in May, a Texas cop searched through the LPR databases to find a woman who had self-administered an abortion. The officer in Texas searched the Flock database and gave the reason “had an abortion, search for female,” as Flock requires users to provide a reason whenever searching through the database. In this case, the woman’s family had called the sheriff’s office because they were worried about her bleeding to death. After two days, the sheriff’s office was able to contact the woman and verify that she was okay. They used Flock technology to look outside of this local area and into other local communities and states .

These situations all raise the same question about LPRs: is “safety” a valid enough reason to surveil? In the case of the stabbing in Providence, you could say Flock was necessary and that this is reason enough to employ more LPR cameras. Whereas a woman living in a state with the strictest abortion laws who illegally gets an abortion could be tracked, which, in my opinion, seems like an overreach of the law. Here’s the biggest problem I foresee with LPRs: there is really no federal regulation. Each local and state government can employ the cameras however they see fit. What does that mean in circumstances like tracking outside of your local borders, where different states have different laws? What state trumps the other? What about misuse of Flock? In Georgia, at least 20 officers have been arrested after abusing their access to these cameras. In many circumstances, these officers were stalking past or prospective partners. In a press conference, the Georgia senator called on the federal government to add some guardrails to this system. 

 “Right now, there are no federal policies to punish or even track when one of the 140,000 law enforcement officers across the country with access to license plate tracking data misuses that information, and unfortunately, we’ve seen dozens of cases of women being stalked by ex-boyfriends or husbands who have been given unrestrained access as law enforcement officers to this surveillance technology,” Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock said. 

I think for Flock and other ALPR systems to be trusted, we need some serious regulations passed at the federal level. Like many Americans, Democrat or Republican, I am worried about how Flock could be used negatively. And with the absence of any federal regulation, that worry seems very valid.

by Marcus Howley ’28 on October 1, 2026

---

Opinion

---

The American flag is an ever-present symbol anywhere you go across the country. The stars and stripes are flying on every block in a city and down every Main Street in a small town. It’s hard to miss the red, white, and blue no matter where you are. Francis Scott Key captured this feeling in a letter to a friend about the siege of Baltimore by the British during the War of 1812, writing, “Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.” The iconic line and letter became the National Anthem. Yet, just like at Fort McHenry, over the last several years, our flag has faced a new challenge. 

To begin to contextualize why I have decided to write about this long-standing issue within American society, we must first go across the pond to Europe to look at two recent cases on the continent. Recently, German head soccer coach Jürgen Klopp made a political statement by wearing a hat that said “one of 83 million,” featuring the Adidas logo in the colors of the German flag. The hat comes as a direct response to the recent regional victory of the Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland), or AfD, in the Eastern region of Saxony-Anhalt. The AfD became the first far-right political party to win a German region since the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei  or Nazi Party won in that same region. Klopp is, of course, making a statement about the belonging of all people within Germany, saying that all people should be able to wave the German flag without connotations of far-right nationalism and that the German people should be careful not to let national symbols fall into the hands of such groups.  

England saw a similar situation with the flag during the recent anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim activities surrounding Operation Raise the Colours, organized by prominent members of the English far-right. This saw supporters vandalizing public spaces, immigrant businesses, and homes with images of the English flag and St. George’s cross. During this period, and even still now, the English flag has become associated with hooliganism and racially motivated violence and intolerance within the country.  

It is a very common theme for far-right nationalist movements to co-opt national symbols as their own. This is an effective strategy for these groups, as it allows them to present themselves as some kind of national vision or as the “true patriots” who uphold the country. This also has the effect of branding anyone who opposes them, and in particular, leftist movements, as being opposed to the country as a whole or against the values of that nation. The more concerning aspect is that it allows these groups to decide who belongs. Typically, those visions of who belongs include only those of a certain ethnic group, race, or religion, excluding those who are immigrants or fall outside of their vision. It is of the utmost importance that we do not allow those who hold white supremacist and fascist ideologies to seize control of our national symbols. 

In the United States, the battle over who takes ownership over national symbols has been raging since at least the 2010s. Far-right and conservative movements, like the MAGA movement, have attempted to take ownership of the U.S. flag and other symbols, like the bald eagle. Control of these symbols allows the Christian nationalist agenda that is embedded within American conservatism to begin deciding who belongs and who doesn’t. This exclusion targets immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable communities who do not fit within their narrow definition of what it means to be a “true American.” We should not let the flag of one’s own country signify a political affiliation or strike fear in those who are most targeted. It is of the utmost importance for us as a nation to fight back against the claiming of the flag. The flag flies for each and every person who calls this nation home. As George Fredrick Root once said in his famous song “The Battle Cry of Freedom,” “Yes we’ll rally round the flag, boys, we’ll rally once again, / Shouting the battle cry of freedom!” It is time for us, too, as a nation, to rally around the flag as a symbol that belongs to  us all. 

by Marcus Howley ’28 on September 24, 2026

---

Opinion

---

In ancient Athens, the term idiotes was used to describe a person who refused to take part in the politics of Athens. This term would evolve over time to the modern-day term of idiot. Politics in the modern day can be very contentious and uncomfortable, especially with the constant mudslinging and vitriol that has embodied our era of mass polarization. It may seem tempting or even appealing to retreat back from the world of politics. You may look outside and think to yourself, “what happens in any given election doesn’t affect me much, some small things may change, but my day still goes on as it did before.” At first, this may appear to be a reasonable statement, especially if you live in middle to upper middle-class America; living in a situation where you have enough comfort and security to not worry about the reach of D.C.   

Yet, the key to your ability to not care is in the last part there, you have the security not to care. Your privilege, whether from class or race, protects you. However, for many Americans across the states and people across the globe, politics matter a lot. Any given election can determine whether someone is able to afford food, gas, housing, or even be able to live in the country. Our elections can serve as a hammer to smash the most vulnerable among us, turning their already difficult situations into dire ones. It is irresponsible of us not to care about politics. At its core, failure to care or participate causes us to neglect those who need our help the most. Politics are messy, and there is no doubt about that, but it is necessary for us to get our hands dirty. 

The worst thing about not caring is devolving into pure apathy about politics and, in turn, our democracy. When people stop caring about voting or showing up at the polls, it weakens the institutions that are necessary to uphold democracy. With low voter turnout, more power is put into the hands of the few who do show up. This can create situations where, in local elections, 20 percent of the town’s population can completely decide or rewrite its future. The consequences of handing this much control over to so small a group of people can be disastrous for democratic institutions. Those in power benefit greatly from this, as fewer voters mean they can be more secure in their position, as well as do things without accountability. Voting is a main way to hold our political leaders in check, and if people refuse to show, those leaders can hide from accountability or limitations. If we do not hold our leaders accountable, then we effectively remove the reigns of democracy from around our government. They are able to act in any way which can serve or benefit them. When democracy begins to crack, the rest of society collapses around it.  

When the hammer of politics smashes down upon the unfortunate, those who do not care about politics are complicit in the destruction. How might this be the case? When one refuses to step in and advocate or care for those who are most vulnerable, they are enabling the actions of those who destroy and oppress them. In order to be complicit, to give power to those who wish to harm, you do not need to say something in support. Rather, all you have to do is  say nothing at all. The moment you decide not to take a stand, the oppressor has already won. This is why it is necessary to care about politics, if not for yourself and the issues around you, then for those who are most tossed around by the changing of the tides. We owe it to every person, not just in our country, but around the world. Your vote could decide the life of a child halfway across the world. Whether we continue to be complicit in horrific crimes or take the side of justice, your voice, your vote, your participation counts. Don’t be an idiot, what you do matters.

by Olivia Gleason '26 on February 27, 2026

---

Opinion

---

Hi Cowl readers! I hope everyone got through this week’s blizzard safely and without too much trouble. With how it looks outside my window right now, it’s near impossible to believe that spring break is only a little over a week away, but here we are. 

For the past several years of my time as a Providence College student, spring break has always meant an opportunity for escape. Every year, I’ve viewed it as a chance to go off the grid for a week—to tune out my school and work notifications, to tap out of the news headlines, to generally take a step back from my reality. This escape is always paired with a sense of guilt for me, though. If I’m tuning out the world entirely, taking this time for myself, am I being a responsible citizen? Is ignoring the news in such a politically charged world a choice I have the right to make? 

I think that there’s an unspoken pressure, especially among college students, to be constantly informed and engaged, to always have a take. Upon further consideration, though, I, for myself, have decided that there is a balance that can be struck between staying in-the-know and avoiding utter burnout. 

Political engagement was never meant to be a 24/7 commitment, but our technologically-defined world has made it so. Democracy depends on participation, on engagement with what is happening around us, but this participation is only valuable when it is sustainable. When we consume information in a constant, unfiltered stream, we don’t become more effective citizens; we become anxious ones.

With this in mind, spring break to me offers a rare opportunity to practice a quick dose of intentional disengagement. Logging off for a week does not erase our values or undo our commitments. Instead, I think that stepping back from the chaos of everyday life once in a while allows us to return to our personal lives and the world around us with a sense of clarity and refreshment. As spring break approaches, I challenge you to escape the algorithm. Read a book simply for pleasure. Have a conversation that doesn’t end in debate. Sit somewhere without refreshing a news feed. When we return to campus, we can reenter both campus life and civic life with a renewed vigor for knowledge and engagement with the world around us.

by Olivia Gleason '26 on February 5, 2026

---

Opinion

---

Hello Cowl readers, happy February! I hope everyone is staying warm despite the biting cold days we’ve been having and the copious amount of snow that seems as if it will never go away. As a student living in off-campus housing this year, I’ve been witnessing the city of Providence’s snow cleanup job firsthand for the past week, and I have my frustrations. For several days after the storm, I was unable to drive my car safely out of my driveway as my street still had several inches of compacted snow on it. Even as I am writing this ed column, my two-lane street is still more or less a one-way street because of how much snow still persists past the sidewalks, and each time I drive my car on it, my wheels become impacted with slushy snow. I completely understand that this was the biggest storm Providence has faced in years, and I am so grateful to the workers who go out to clean up the streets. However, I believe that the city could have done a much better job at organizing its resources to get this done more quickly, and for that, I am left feeling frustrated with the city’s mayor and other political officials. 

This got me thinking about how healthy it is to have qualms with your representatives. This storm left me questioning if more could have been done to keep residents safe and get them back to their usual routines. In today’s incredibly polarized political climate, I think it has become a widespread norm for individuals to turn a blind eye when a political figure they support does something they might disagree with or that frustrates them. We see it daily with Republican members of Congress who refuse to speak even the smallest ill of the President, we see it on the news and in interviews, and we see it in our daily political conversations. In short, much political discourse has been reduced to either supporting a politician completely or not at all. 

I think that such an approach to politics is incredibly unproductive. Our democratic system was built to include several checks on its representatives, to make them at the will of the voice of the people. Instead, today, many individuals cannot think to admit it when a politician of their party messes up or promotes a policy that they disagree with. To do this is perceived to be a betrayal of their entire party and system of beliefs, when in reality, it is nothing of the sort. Disagreeing occasionally with a politician you generally support is necessary to democracy, and it is necessary to bring about positive political change. Without such disagreement, without such pressure from the citizenry, politicians have nothing to hold them accountable—no matter what they do, they know that their base will offer them blind support. 

In short, I was frustrated with Providence this past week, but this doesn’t mean I have betrayed them or my own political affiliations. Taking issue with your representatives once in a while—or even all the time—just means that you care enough to demand better from them for a better society. Holding them accountable, especially when you generally support them, is an act of civic responsibility. We must be willing to participate in thoughtful criticism, to voice frustration along with praise, if we want to get the most from politics. 

by Victoria Miele ’28 on February 5, 2026

---

News

---

On Thursday, Jan. 29, the political science department hosted an event titled “Change or Rupture: The U.S. and the World!” featuring Dr. Ruth Ben-Artzi, Dr. Thea Riofrancos, and Dr. Gizem Zencirci. The panel presented a well-rounded idea of their geopolitical concerns, and they each addressed different areas where they found particular concern regarding the United States’ political relationship with the rest of the world.

Dr. Riofrancos started the discussion by highlighting that her area of expertise is mainly in Latin America, and so for this event, she would primarily discuss that area, although she was open to answering questions from all over the world. She provided historical context on the Monroe Doctrine, which was created in the early 19th century, and stated that no European powers should have intervention in the Western Hemisphere. Since its establishment in the early 1800s, corollaries have been added to this doctrine. Most recently, the doctrine has been referred to colloquially as the Donroe Doctrine, after current President Trump.

The Donroe Doctrine, as explained by Dr. Riofrancos, is a more modern approach or interpretation of the earlier version, and it now prioritizes the current administration’s concerns. It now asserts U.S. dominance throughout the Americas, most notably through military and economic pressures. These pressures are supposed to show power over adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran, and it gives the U.S. the right to intervene in countries such as Venezuela to secure U.S. interests and resources.

Dr. Riofrancos ended her sections of the talk by discussing U.S. relations with China, saying the U.S. is taking a less direct approach to opposing China than it has in the past. She provided two theories; the U.S. could be focusing on their own sphere of influence and backing off from China in general, or they could be preparing to take on China closer to home by focusing on Latin American countries with Chinese influence.

Next, Dr. Ben-Artzi spoke about the shifting world order. She also provided a lot of historical context revolving around the United Nations and the ways in which the U.S. has historically had a lot of control in global decision-making. According to Dr. Ben-Artzi, the U.S. has used their veto power in the U.N. more than any other country. She mentioned Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he essentially said Canada was tired of following the U.S. ‘s rules and was going to be focusing its alliances elsewhere. Dr. Ben-Artzi predicts that this will be a trend all over the world—countries will be taking a step back from the U.S. and creating new trading blocs and alliances.

Dr. Zencirci finished off the panel by addressing some concerns she has with the current state of the U.S. as a democracy. She addressed the ways in which the media within the U.S. is no longer independent, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find media that is completely unbiased. She discussed “accessive government crackdown on protestors,” as well as increased censorship and data mining by U.S. official organizations. She finished off by discussing how the government manipulates the media to “vilify protestors” and distort the public’s views.

The three professors then answered students’ questions for close to an hour, providing interesting and meaningful insight on topics such as where to find trusted news, the use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the U.S., and how to better understand what the initiatives of the Board of Peace really are.

The event was well attended and the professors left hopeful that they would be able to host another panel with rotating professors again soon.

by Shannon Kelly ’26 on January 29, 2026

---

News

---

On Thursday, Jan. 22, the United States officially withdrew from the World Health Organization after 77 years of being a member. This had been discussed by President Donald Trump for over a year now, and on Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14155, which officially initiated the U.S.s’ withdrawal from the WHO. The current administration attributed the exit of the U.S. to “profound failures in the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic originating in Wuhan, China; its persistent refusal to implement necessary reforms; and its lack of accountability, transparency, and independence.” 

The U.S. was a founding member of the WHO and joined under President Harry Truman on June 14, 1948. The U.S. has also been the largest funder of the WHO throughout history, providing nearly 20 percent of its $3.4 billion annual budget, which has raised significant questions regarding the effects that its withdrawal may have on public health. Today, the U.S. still owes almost $200 million for the years 2024 and 2025. As it stands today, it remains uncertain if this money will be paid. There are mixed reactions regarding what necessitated our current administration’s choice to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO. The director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Michael Osterholm, described this as “one of the most penny-wise and billion-dollar-foolish moves.” 

The WHO spearheads efforts towards expanding universal health coverage around the globe. They are also actively involved in responding to health emergencies and promoting the wellness of all around the world. Their work mainly revolves around responding to crises, chronic diseases, and actively engaging with people around the globe through frontline work. 

Ultimately, the U.S.’ exit from the WHO should encourage all of us to question what our national priorities truly are. Judd Walson, chair of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, stated, “People are much more skeptical of the motivations of Americans and American institutions in engaging in global collaboration… It’s harder to say that we are going to work together to resolve problems when people feel we continue to have ulterior, self-serving motives.” 

The state of public health in the U.S. is currently facing many challenges, including unfeasible prices, worsening health outcomes, disparities in care, and chronic illnesses experienced by a vast amount of the population. Leaving the WHO poses many fundamental questions, including most principally what we choose to value here in the U.S. or whether or not we deem preparedness for future pandemics, allocating funds towards eradicating chronic disease, and the future of health on a global scale to be worth investing in.

by Lucy Droege ’26 on November 20, 2025

---

A&E - Film & TV

---

As many have written about and discussed over the years, the Star Wars franchise is a story (albeit long and winding) about politics. Like all good political narratives, there is drama, love, disagreement, deception, civil war, and countless limbs chopped off. As a political science major watching the Star Wars series for the first time, the line that stopped me in my tracks was Padmé’s famous line in Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005), “So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.” That’s not really something you throw in lightly in an action film set in outer space. However, the international context in which the Star Wars movies were released explains many of the political nuances and portrayals in the films. The Vietnam War, the Cold War, and American politics of the early 2000s significantly influence the themes throughout the films. What I failed to recognize before watching the movies is just how closely tied the series is to politics back here on Earth. 

The setting of Star Wars in an intergalactic system of order makes it easy for the viewer to sit back and watch the series as an action-packed escape from the very real politics on Earth. Despite the futuristic droids, clones, and other extraterrestrial creatures that make up the Star Wars universe, there still remains familiar political systems and intergalactic agreements in order for this universe to function. The breakdown of these agreements that make up the democratic order governing the Star Wars universe is the driving plot point of the series. In Revenge of the Sith, the democracy of the Republic is less forcibly overthrown than its destruction is willingly voted in favor of. With democratic backsliding back in vogue recently, the breakdown of the democratic experiment in Star Wars hits close to home. Much like in the real world, a state of emergency (whether real or manufactured), where states and individuals with power feel threatened, creates an opportunity to consolidate power in the hands of a select few. This shiny and dangling allure of unlimited power is often impossible not to snatch up. The dark side of the Force and of politics will always be an enticing option. Greed for power, money, recognition, and respect is inside every single lifeform. The alternative, to pursue the common good no matter the personal sacrifice, will always be the most honorable choice. The temptation of the dark side is precisely what makes the pursuit of goodness so admirable both in Star Wars and in reality.

by Shannon Kelly ’26 on November 6, 2025

---

News

---

Former Secretary of State, First Lady, and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton was the guest speaker at Brown University’s Pizzitola’s Sports Center on Thursday, Oct. 30. As a relentless public servant who has dedicated her life to preserving the welfare of families and advocating for women’s rights to be seen as human rights, Clinton spoke as a part of the Ogden Memorial Lecture on International Affairs series, which began in 1965. The series honors Stephen A. Ogden Jr., who was a member of the class of 1960 and tragically died in a car accident during his junior year. The Ogden Lectureship was founded two years later and hoped to protect Ogden’s aspirations: the advancement of international peace and understanding. In over 100 talks given thus far, the Ogden Lectures share a common thread of speaking on pressing matters that necessitate global concern.

Brown University President, Christina H. Paxson, gave formal remarks before handing the microphone to John N. Friedman, the inaugural dean of the Thomas J. Watson School of International and Public Affairs. Friedman spoke to the importance of preserving knowledge in our current societal climate and preparing future leaders to engage with some of the world’s most pressing political and social problems. 

The first topic Clinton spoke about was foreign policy. Specifically, she emphasized the need to remember the impact of WWII on the global order, which ultimately allowed for America to emerge as a global superpower. Repeatedly throughout the talk, Clinton mentioned the impacts of the rise of China and Russian aggression. To quote, she said there is “a lot of churn going on” regarding current world movements. Clinton also called the audience’s attention to the current moment by mentioning the attacks on international institutions and the current administration’s withdrawal of the United States from agreements that we have been a part of for many years. She advocated for an approach that recognizes the need for stability and discipline, as the lack of credibility of the current administration often leads to multifaceted instability. Clinton also expressed her thoughts on the Israel/Palestine conflict, stating that a ceasefire is the very beginning of the work necessary and that we are in dire need of patient, strategic leadership. 

Clinton was asked about the role of power and persuasion in our current society. She continually highlighted the need for us to try and understand the people with whom we share space. She also spoke about her own engagement with personal diplomacy, where she continually makes an effort to get to know political leaders through forming connections and relationships. Clinton encouraged all of us to do that on a local level—to make an active effort to share conversation and get to know those who exist in the same communities as you. Additionally, she made it a point to say that as a people, we must be willing to invest in relationships with one another, instead of treating everything like it’s a transaction. 

The topics of misinformation and disinformation were also discussed, stating that this is one of the biggest issues that we face and that not nearly enough is currently being done. Clinton explained disinformation to be a well-organized industry that operates in a way that further divides Americans. Both industries have exacerbated a crisis of deciphering what is a fact and what is a falsehood, especially online. She encouraged the need for the basis of our information to be grounded in fact, and that we must be firm in our individual beliefs. She also spoke to the manipulation of the algorithm in our social media feeds that seek to “flood the zone and tilt our opinions one way or another.” Clinton concluded that we are living in a crisis of knowing what’s real and what’s not, while undergoing a massive experiment on our brains, which are so easily addicted to what is on our phones, or machines, as she referred to them. All in all, when we lack facts, evidence, and truth, it is impossible to have trust. 

One of the most powerful parts of the talk stemmed from Clinton’s advice she offered to young girls and women. Her first piece of advice was that people must not feel deterred, recognizing that being a woman in politics is really difficult, and that women are constantly being attacked online. She also spoke to her own experience of having a family and working in the political arena, as she believes that the priority has now shifted to the safety of women, rather than the lived experience. Clinton believes it takes true confidence and courage for women to put themselves out there. She also stated that we should take criticism seriously, but not personally; she reinforced that we must learn from criticism rather than give in to it. 

The last topic discussed was the role of universities in promoting democracy. Clinton’s response was simple and involved just eight words: “register to vote and vote in every election.” She mentioned the urgent need for forums that include differing opinions, educating people on current issues, and talking about what is at stake when discussing politics. She said that universities must be incubators of citizenship and have a duty to encourage debate based on facts, while encouraging all of their students to register to vote. 

Clinton ended by talking about the need to focus on the day-to-day challenges that we face and that we must remember the 250th anniversary of the United States that is approaching in the coming year. All in all, she encouraged the audience to engage across differences with both humanity and humility, with the intention of understanding other people’s perspectives, even when they do not align with your own. Condoleezza Rice is the next speaker for the Ogden Lecture Series on Wednesday, Nov. 5 at the Pizzitola Sports Center at Brown University.A Talk by Hillary Clinton: A Reflection on Her Career and Future

by Kaelynd Brouillette ’29 on October 23, 2025

---

News - Campus

---

If you have scrolled TikTok or Instagram lately or turned on the news, you’ve probably seen the panic surrounding the current government shutdown. Personally, I was scared. When I heard the shutdown was actually happening, I was worried about my flight home. Was it going to be cancelled or delayed? Should I get to the airport extra early in case the TSA takes forever? On Oct. 9, I flew out of Logan International in Boston to Syracuse, NY, and business was operating as normal. TSA took 10 minutes, and my flight took off on time. I prepared for the absolute worst going in there, but I was surprised by the relatively normal experience. After all,  TSA workers and air traffic controllers are federal employees who are affected by the shutdown. The situation left me thinking that maybe this is what America feels like right now—everything looks normal on the outside, but beneath, our system is cracking. That realization made me wonder how much the people around me actually understand what’s going on, not just at the airport, but across the country. To find this information out, I sent out a student-run survey regarding Providence College students’ perceptions of the shutdown. 

PC students’ reactions show how younger generations perceive government dysfunctions from the outside looking in. While most aren’t directly affected, many recognize the shutdown as a symptom of deeper political failure. Their voices reveal both frustration with leaders and a desire for better civic understanding, as only 14.8 percent of PC student respondents said they felt truly informed about the shutdown. Most reported that they get their news from social media, such as TikTok and Instagram, with only some getting it directly from well-known news sources. This highlights a broader issue: young people are surrounded by political content on every platform, and lack context or real, trustworthy explanations. Social media, although helpful in some capacity, is not an entirely reliable source of information regarding obtaining facts on the current state of our government, containing often biased and heavily skewed “information.” 

I also found it interesting that 52 percent of respondents said they were not personally affected by the shutdown in any capacity, and 74.1 percent said they only felt somewhat connected to the events happening in D.C., although several cited indirect consequences, such as their family and ROTC members being furloughed, as well as some stating they did experience TSA/flight struggles. This data makes it clear that students see through political dysfunction, yet struggle to feel connected to government processes. It is important to note that although we, as a generation, find it difficult to feel impacted by national government events such as this shutdown, we recognize the implications of it and see that it has real-world effects in society. One anonymous student stated, “We feel isolated in our own little world when we’re on campus, but there’s so much going on around us that is important to learn.” This quote really stuck with me because it holds true that when we are on campus, we do feel like we’re in our own little world, and although there are such frightening government events happening in our country, we don’t feel affected by them. Therefore, it is incredibly important that college students make any effort to learn about and care about the current state of the government. Although we don’t feel the direct effects, our society as a whole is facing the consequences. 

Through my collection of data, students also made it clear that the shutdown is not a good look for our government, with 74.1 percent of respondents saying that this has changed the way they see our government and its leaders for the worse. Two anonymous students expressed frustration with the way our administration is handling the shutdown, stating “The propaganda that has been plastered all over official government websites, calling this a ‘Democrat shutdown’ has worsened my feelings towards the Trump Administration,” with another stating “Misinformation and the control of news and media I feel is at an all time high attempting to divide the country with Democrat versus Republican without being genuine to the inherent ideals of the parties.” These responses reflect bipartisan frustration, as students are annoyed with the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle, and, from what I have gathered, believe it is important for both sides to work together to solve the bigger issue at hand. 

While many Americans view the shutdown as a distant political event, federal employees are experiencing a direct disruption of their livelihoods. I conducted an interview with an Environmental Project Manager who has worked for the federal government for 10 years now, and he gave us an inside glimpse as to what the work environment is currently like. He describes his frustration with seeing “highly respected people in their fields,” being scientists and engineers, labeled to be nonessential by “people unfamiliar with their work.” This label, he explains, is “demeaning to someone who takes pride in the work they do.” For these workers, it’s not just about a paycheck, but rather being told their contribution to society suddenly does not matter. The shutdown reduces public service to a checklist of expendability, reflecting a broader cultural disregard for labor that does not produce an immediate political or financial gain. When asked about the overall morale in his workplace, he stated, “Disruptions such as this shut down and callous decision making created a negative environment locally and I’m sure through the federal workforce.” Imagine going to work knowing your role is “essential,” yet your paycheck is suspended and some of your colleagues have been determined “nonessential.” This situation therefore corrodes morale and creates resentment towards leadership that appears indifferent to human cost. The government relies on the expertise of people like him to keep important systems running, but refuses to compensate him for his contributions in real time. He notes that essential workers must “adapt, find a solution and press forward” despite missing staff support and resources, showing that it is adaptability and the quiet resilience of people like him that keep the country functioning even when Congress does not. It’s a stark reminder that the strength of our institutions lies not in the politicians who run them, but in the ordinary professionals who continue to do their jobs day in and day out despite being furloughed. His words reveal the human face of government dysfunction and the emotional labor carried by workers unseen by the public. Shutdowns are often discussed in terms of cost per day or economic impact, but the true cost is personal: pride diminished, morale broken, and trust in leadership eroded. The story of this one federal employee becomes a mirror for a much larger truth, being that America’s “nonessential” workers are often the ones most essential to its stability. The government shutdown is therefore not just a budgetary failure, but a profound human failure, one that exposes the gap between political rhetoric and the lived reality of those keeping the country running.

Just like the airport seemed to be functioning normally, in my case at least, despite the chaos behind the scenes, so too does America, as we continue to move forward during this shutdown. Even in states of complete dysfunction, daily life goes on because of the people who choose to let it, such as our TSA agents, the National Guard, and environmental project managers. Make no mistake, the shutdown is a serious reflection of a larger failure within our government and its leaders, as well as political stubbornness and polarization. It reveals how fragile our systems can be when struggles for power on both sides outweigh public service. Yet, despite all of this, I still believe in the strength of our system. Our democracy is not perfect, but it is resilient, as it bends under pressure yet does not break. The American system has always found a way to adapt to change, and I believe it will again—not because of the politicians in D.C., but because of the people who keep it running. As students, citizens, voters, and future leaders, it is our responsibility to pay attention, to learn, to question, and to care about the government that shapes our daily lives, although we may not directly feel it. Understanding what’s happening beyond campus is the first step in ensuring the next generation leads with more empathy and accountability. The government may falter, but its people never do. Students, workers, and citizens together prove that America’s system, though strained, will always endure.