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.

by Layca Figueroa Salas ‘26 on October 2, 2025

---

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 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 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.