by Layca Figueroa Salas ‘26 on October 2, 2025

---

National and Global News

---

Disclaimer: This article was written before the government shutdown on Wednesday, Oct. 1.

A potential government shutdown is drawing near as Tuesday, Sept. 30 approaches. Each fiscal year, Congress must approve funding for federal departments and programs beginning Oct. 1. However, if lawmakers fail to pass a full-year spending package or a temporary funding extension, a government shutdown would occur, forcing many agencies to suspend operations and hundreds of thousands of federal workers to be furloughed. 

Essential employees, such as those in national security and public safety, would continue working without pay until Congress allocates new funding. While most federal employees could receive back pay after the shutdown ends, delayed paychecks can create significant financial strain in the meantime. 

Since 1980, there have been 14 government shutdowns. During recent shutdowns, citizens felt the effects with students faced delays in obtaining tax documents from the IRS needed for financial aid and the Department of Agriculture warned it could only guarantee food stamp benefits through February. Fortunately, programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are funded through mandatory spending and would continue uninterrupted. 

In efforts to prevent another shutdown, House Republicans have passed a short-term spending bill that would keep federal funding at current levels through Nov. 21 and provide $88 million in emergency funds to bolster security for executive branch officials. However, Democrats have opposed the measure, arguing that the package must include an extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies and other priorities to gain their support.

Democratic leaders have also emphasized the urgency of addressing these subsidies before millions of Americans begin signing up for health insurance coverage in November. As of Sept. 26, President Donald Trump had dismissed these demands as “unreasonable,” but by Sept. 28, he agreed to meet with the four top Congressional leaders at the White House, just one day before the funding deadline.

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 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 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 Clara Johnson ’26 on November 7, 2024

---

News

---

Image courtesy of Rolling Stone

As of 5:34 a.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2024, Former President Donald Trump had gained 277 electoral votes, winning the presidential election and guaranteeing his return to the White House. This election ultimately came down to the seven swing states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia. Ultimately, Trump and Vance captured all seven of the swing states, including the “blue wall” states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—the key states that Harris would have needed to secure the election. Ultimately, voter concerns about the economy superseded concerns about healthcare, reproductive rights, and the environment.

           Additionally, the GOP managed to wrestle control of the Senate with Ohio’s Bernie Moreno flipping the incumbent Democrat’s seat and West Virginia’s Jim Justice winning the seat vacated by Joe Manchin’s retirement. The GOP also stands poised to take control of the house, though, as of Wednesday evening, that remains undecided. Along with a conservative judiciary, power in this country has been concentrated in the hands of the Republican Party.  

           This election has been one of the most intense and unprecedented in American history, revealing divisions that have become entrenched in our culture. One aspect of this election that is particularly notable is that Trump undid the Biden map, reflecting his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton. This election saw strict gender divides, a divide which both candidates played to, with Harris focusing on reproductive rights and Trump attempting to motivate men to vote. Trump also managed to make large gains among Latino men, winning this demographic by eight points and cementing Florida as a right-leaning state, rather than a battleground. Ohio, the home of JD Vance, also joins the ranks of solidly red states after being a traditional battleground state, with the motivation of rural voters. He also motivated rural voters, a demographic that has been traditionally less active, to engage with this election. This election also marks the first time that a convicted felon has won the White House.          

While Trump supporters and Republicans celebrate these results, concerns ring out about the state of democracy in the wake of this controversial election and the GOP dominance in all branches of government. Many also worry about the deep divisions that have emerged from this election and how society can proceed after the votes are counted.

by Kaelin Ferland '23 on April 20, 2023
Opinion Staff

---

Opinion

---

The Environmental Impacts of the Meat Industry

The return to campus after Easter break marks the end of meatless Fridays in observance of Lent. From an environmental perspective, eliminating meat on Fridays at Providence College has a positive impact on our planet. Annually, an average American diet produces 2,000 kilograms of greenhouse gasses. However, by eliminating meat from your diet for just one day a week, you can decrease this amount by 400 kilograms. Switching to a plant-based diet is arguably one of the best things we can do to live sustainably and help our planet. While this lifestyle might not be something everyone is able to adopt, the next best thing we can do is avoid eating meat for one day, one week, or even for one meal.  

About one-third of greenhouse gasses emitted into our atmosphere are from food production. Of this number, about 60 percent can be attributed to meat production, while 29 percent is attributed to the production of plant-based foods. Animals raised for meat, specifically cows, also release a greenhouse gas called methane, which is 26 percent stronger and better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. It’s estimated that these animals are responsible for one-third of our global methane emissions. Plant-based meat, however, releases about 90 percent fewer emissions. 

Additionally, around 70 percent of our world’s deforestation is due to agriculture, most notably meat production. As meat consumption continues to increase over the years, deforestation and the loss of trees to meet demand will make it even more difficult to remove carbon dioxide emissions from our atmosphere and mitigate climate change. On the other hand, plant-based meat uses up to 95 percent less land according to the United Nations Environment Assembly. 

Meat production also has a significant water footprint. 15,000 liters of water are required to produce just 1 kilogram of beef. Pork and chicken similarly require a lot of water, using about 6,000 and 4,300 liters of water respectively per kilogram of meat. More specifically, the UN Environment Assembly estimates that 2,500 liters of water are used to produce one beef burger, and just three slices of bacon require 408 liters. Think of all the water you can save by choosing to skip a burger for one day, as well as how much water we’ve preserved by not serving them on campus during Lent. The UN also estimates that plant-based meat substitutes use 75-95 percent less water. 

Meat consumption has a significant environmental impact, requiring copious amounts of resources. By making small dietary changes to exclude meat partially or entirely, it’s possible to help preserve these resources, as well as minimize our greenhouse gas emissions. Adopting a plant-based diet in some form is one of the best ways we as individuals can help do our part in mitigating climate change.

by Kaelin Ferland '23 on April 20, 2023
Opinion Staff

---

Featured Slider

---

Why We Need to Celebrate This Holiday Year-round

The 1960s was a critical decade for environmental policy in the United States, serving as the first time politicians began to recognize how humans play a large role in environmental destruction. Fortunately, this led to important policy changes and legislation to protect our planet. However, this relationship between human activity and ecological degradation was something already well-known among environmentalists prior to the 1960s. 

Environmentalists including Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, and Gaylord Nelson were essential figures in the environmental movement. Carson’s Silent Spring is arguably one of the most influential texts of the movement. Published in 1962, it revealed the dangers of D.D.T. and pesticide use on both human and wildlife health, accusing chemical companies of hiding these dangerous side effects from the public. The publication resulted in the ban of D.D.T. across the country. With his Sand County Almanac published in 1949, Leopold introduced the term “land ethic” for the first time, an idea that humans need to coexist with nature, rather than continue to dominate and exploit it. This message is still prevalent today, as decades later, it seems as though we still have yet to adopt such a vision. 

In 1969, environmentalist and Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson proposed the idea for Earth Day, and in 1970, it was celebrated for the first time on April 22. Earth Day was a turning point for environmental awareness and advocacy in the U.S. The same year in 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was formed, as well as the National Environmental Education Act and the Clean Air Act. In the next three years, the U.S. would also go on to establish the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. The first Earth Day was an environmental breakthrough, resulting in some of the most important environmental legislation we have to date. 

Still, just over 50 years later, it seems as though we have forgotten the importance of Earth Day and what it means as we continue to act in unsustainable ways that harm our planet. Every year, over one billion people in over 193 countries celebrate Earth Day. Imagine how much of an impact we could make if this many people treated every day like Earth Day.  

From what the March 2023 I.P.C.C. report explains, it’s clear that we need people advocating for environmental change year-round. According to the report, we have already caused our planet to warm an additional 1.1 degrees Celsius, dangerously nearing the 1.5 degrees Celsius scientists constantly warn is the tipping point. 

What happens if temperatures increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius? In terms of biodiversity, 14 percent of species could be threatened with extinction, and a loss of up to 90 percent of coral reefs is also expected. Additionally, 950 million people could start experiencing drought as well as extreme temperatures, with 45–58 days of the year likely to surpass 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Flooding is also expected to affect 24 percent more people with this increase. 

We need to change our habits every day of the year, not just on Earth Day. We cannot combat climate change and other environmental issues by reflecting on our lifestyles and advocating for the planet only one day a year. It’s our responsibility to not only make sustainable choices each day but to push for environmental policy that is crucial for mitigating climate change. If we want to live on a planet that is equitable, sustainable, just, and habitable, this is something we have to do all year. 

by David Salzillo Jr. '24 on April 20, 2023
Opinion Staff

---

Opinion

---

In the latest example of Supreme Court hypocrisy, Justice Clarence Thomas—the self-styled “man of the people” who prefers “RV parks” and “Walmart parking lots” to “the beaches”—has, according to the Beacon Hill Times, “been accepting luxury vacations from a Texas billionaire for the past 25 years.” Out of all the countless instances of the Court’s moral decadence, this one is the most eye-catching. Setting aside the obvious conflicts of interest, these revelations show how Justice Thomas’ populism is nothing other than a cover for the interests of the rich and powerful. Nevertheless, lost in these conversations about the “Supreme Hypocrite” is perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of all: “originalism.”  

According to its adherents, originalism is the belief “that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law” (National Constitution Center). Put simply, originalists argue that the Courts should interpret the Constitution as the people who wrote it would have. If the Framers did not think the First Amendment forbade public prayers in public schools, then the Court must necessarily follow that opinion, and so on. Anything else, they say, would be a judicial overreach.  

In practice, of course, originalism has been twisted to serve the needs of conservative justices and legal scholars. Consider the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. To many, he was the public face of originalism. Yet his comments during the Court’s hearings on Obamacare in 2012 suggest otherwise. Namely, in his questioning, Justice Scalia infamously likened Obamacare’s health insurance mandate to the government forcing people to buy broccoli. But, even if you somehow think this comparison holds (and I don’t), the U.S. government has had the power to make people buy things since the time of George Washington; indeed, “President Washington once signed a bill asking Americans to buy a musket and ammunition” (“One Document, Under Siege,” Richard Stengel, from Time’s The Constitution: An Essential User’s Guide). As Justice Scalia ought to have known, a bad policy does not always make an unconstitutional policy. Unless he was trying to “legislate from the bench.”  

Scalia’s hypocrisy was not a one-off in the history of conservative originalism. In Citizens United, the Court—including none other than Justice Clarence Thomas—argued that the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech entailed a right for corporations to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on campaigns with little to no transparency or accountability. In short, corporations have the same rights as people, even though modern corporations 1) did not exist in the Founding Era and 2) were and “are artificial creatures of the State, subject to government oversight to ensure that they do not abuse the special privileges granted to them to succeed in business” (David H. Gans, American Constitution Society). Corporate personhood goes against both the Founders’ original intentions and Court precedent.  

Why is originalism so easily bent to the will of the American elite? Because it is a flimsy legal philosophy. To understand why, consider the following thought experiment: let’s say that the Framers did not consider the guillotine to be “cruel and unusual punishment.” In fact, let’s suppose that, like the 18th-century French doctor who first came up with the idea, the Framers thought the guillotine was a way of avoiding the brutal and barbaric executions of the past. Would that subsequently obligate the Court to proclaim that execution via the guillotine does not violate the Eighth Amendment? Better yet, what if the Framers wrote the Constitution in the 13th century instead of the 18th? Would that force the Court to stand by powerless if Texas decided to behead someone for a capital offense?  

The Court never needed to take such a stance to preserve the Framers’ vision. The Constitution was always about timeless principles, not their application. The Framers undoubtedly understood that they were men, and that they could not foresee every development in science or technology or ethics. Especially since many of the Framers disagreed amongst themselves on how to apply the principles enshrined in the Constitution, why should we take their word on the matter as final?  

The current Court knows all this well. Otherwise, they would follow originalism to its logical consequences (God help us if they ever change their minds). Instead, they take originalism to mean their peculiar form of “small government”—that is, small government for corporations and corporations only. But if the Court wishes to serve the American oligarchy, let them be honest, and not hide behind meaningless legal jargon.  

It would certainly save Justice Thomas the time of filling out his disclosure forms.

by Connor Flynn '25 on April 20, 2023
Opinion Staff

---

Opinion

---

City’s Spirit of Resilience Grows with Time

For those of us from the Boston area, April 15, 2013, lives vividly in our memories. With schools closed on Patriots’ Day, the official state holiday commemorating the battles of Lexington and Concord, early risers assemble on Lexington Green to catch a view of the reenactments, and then crowds flock to the streets from Hopkinton to Boston to watch the Boston Marathon. The Red Sox always play at home on Patriots’ Day, as runners make the final gritty push past Fenway Park into the heart of the city. 

Sunshine blanketed Boston and the heat felt more like July than April. On a picturesque New England day, without a cloud in the sky, our entire community cheered on family, friends, and strangers as they trotted through my hometown of Natick. As a fourth grader, everything about that day, from the sun to the community to the baseball and the history, was truly perfect in my eyes. Best of all was the larger-than-life Boston Marathon, an event I knew as an exciting, dependable, and seemingly indestructible part of life growing up. Until it wasn’t. 

In the years that have followed the Boston Marathon bombing, I, like many others in the Greater Boston area, have returned to that day many times. The contrasting feelings of blissful joy turned to confusion, then horror, and despair that will stay with us forever when we recall April 15, 2013. As the city and the surrounding area locked down for days during the ensuing manhunt, the Boston Strong campaign was just getting started and the Red Sox made it a point to play baseball on April 20, five days after the attack. In what is now an iconic pregame ceremony speech honoring victims and first responders, Red Sox legend David Ortiz, “Big Papi,” declared that “this is our f*cking city. Nobody is going to dictate our freedom.” To my ten-year-old ears, that was pretty much the greatest thing I had ever heard. Papi’s speech has resonated with the community throughout the years, speaking to the resilience of the Greater Boston area.

During the aftermath of the tragedy, the strength of Boston and of its people was on full display, from the spectators and public safety officials who ran towards danger to help in the seconds after the attack, to the outpouring of financial support for the One Fund, a charity that was arranged to assist survivors. Even as a fourth grader, I was processing and internalizing this spirit, the timeless spirit of Boston, that those who sought to knock us down through cowardly acts of terror only revealed further strength. 

Stephen Colbert summed it up nicely on his show the day after the marathon, saying: “These maniacs may have tried to make life bad for the people of Boston, but all they can ever do is show how good those people are.” Nothing could be more true. Now, ten years later, Patriots’ Day holds a reflective and proud meaning for people in Massachusetts and around the country.

Time has passed and our lives have changed since that week in 2013, but the spirit of Boston, the spirit of steadfast revolutionaries and hardworking immigrants, of valiant heroes and inspirational survivors, remains constant in the face of history. Bostonians have a reputation for being proud, but nothing makes me prouder than experiencing how the city, the Commonwealth, the country, and the world came together to rally and look out for neighbors and strangers alike following what is undoubtedly the hardest chapter in the modern history of Boston. A decade after the unthinkable, Boston has time and again shown itself to be a resilient city, its people turning to each other for support instead of turning on each other. It is full of people who wear their hearts on their sleeves, but who never back down from defending their own. It is full of people who have stared terror in the face and have emerged more united than ever, prouder than ever. They are people who truly define what it means to be Boston Strong.

by Christina Charie '25 on April 20, 2023
Opinion Editor

---

Featured Slider

---

Fahrenheit 451’s dystopian future may seem unfathomable, but modern society is inching closer to throwing books into the fire. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is one of the many recent examples of censoring curricula with the Stop Woke Act and installing conservative leadership at the New College of Florida. This problem, however, is not unique to Florida. As part of the Providence College community, each one of us is at the center of the debate between academic freedom and personal convictions. As an institution of higher education, the College does not have to question if certain topics are age-appropriate, but no one should take this freedom for granted since new arguments are gaining traction. 

Reading should make one feel uncomfortable. A true work of literature pushes the reader to think beyond the confines of their own experience and leap into an unfamiliar world. Students should have the opportunity to explore their interests freely through the world of literature instead of operating within the boundaries of ideology. The new AP African American Studies curriculum bans authors such as bell hooks and Angela Davis simply to cater to the supporters of the right-wing agenda like Governor DeSantis. This does not serve as a valid justification for banning texts from the classroom.

Unfortunately, despite the efforts of many influential politicians, history cannot be erased. Even if the government mandates that racism cannot be discussed in the classroom, the impacts of such systems permeate American society to this day. Ignoring the discussion does not change the fact that several of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. 

While many parents of K-12 students push back against certain texts for including graphic content, in the age of social media, explicit content is only a search away. 82 percent of the challenges made against certain content involved books while only two percent involved films in 2021 according to the American Library Association. Even though films often depict sexual content, violence, and injustice more graphically by nature, the data demonstrates that the public is more concerned about books. Introducing difficult concepts like sexual assault and violence in a constructive classroom setting is much more productive than a child witnessing it in a YouTube video or Instagram post. 

The logic behind the argument for banning books is inherently flawed in its nature. If one considers any discussion of violence worthy of a ban, then the Bible, by this logic, should be banned from libraries and the classroom. However, the targets of book bans are texts such as The Hunger Games and The Hate U Give. The argument is not about violence; the argument has never been about violence. If the argument was about shielding children from violence, the people calling for book bans would work to prevent guns from entering schools instead. 

If books could indoctrinate the masses, then Hitler’s Mein Kampf would appear on the American Library Association’s list of most challenged books more often than The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. Of course, reading can shape one’s outlook on the world, but it does not produce individuals who blindly follow the words of one mind. In fact, reading creates well-rounded individuals capable of developing their own thoughts and opinions, which is the purpose of the entire education system. 

If Americans read more books instead of scrolling through their social media feeds, the country would be better for it. With education being such a highly sought-after commodity, the nation should encourage intense critical thinking instead of close-minded ideological reassurance.