The Thursday, April 17 demonstration was organized by the Advocacy Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) at GVSU. Over 100 assemblies were held across the country by the Coalition for Action in Higher Education to protest the Trump administration’s funding cuts to education and research, as well as the revocation of international student visas.

AAUP is a national organization of faculty and academic professionals that seeks to foster dialogue, raise awareness of issues and elevate university faculty voices. The day of action, endorsed by national AAUP, was established last year.

At GVSU, student organizations including The Olive Tree, Students for a Democratic Society, Progressive Student Union and Voices for Justice took part in the demonstration. University community members came together for speeches and chants, citing what they felt was the need to defend higher education from federal attacks.

Organizers and attendees said they believe universities are a space for social change, advocating for freedom in education and social equity.

“This space, university spaces, are potentially spaces of revolutionary social change,” said Brian Deyo, associate professor of English and the University’s AAUP president. “We’re all here to defend this place (GVSU).”

Joel Wendland-Liu, a professor in the University’s Integrative Studies Program, spoke to attendees about why he took part in the event.

“I feel like we’re under attack,” Wendland-Liu stated. “This university (and) the university system in general across the country is under attack.”

Wendland-Liu expressed that despite federal policies targeting diversity, equity and inclusion in education, universities have a duty to protect all members of their community.

“Diversity is a fact (and) a reality,” Wendland-Liu said. “It’s not something we shove under the carpet and ignore. It is part of our lives. When a member of our community is under attack, we fight back.”

National AAUP, alongside local chapters, have sued the Trump administration over the dismantling of the Department of Education and research funding cuts. AAUP is also part of a lawsuit alleging the federal government is violating the First Amendment by singling out noncitizens for their pro-Palestine beliefs.

English major Jackson Hicks and education student Ian McGuckin spoke to demonstration attendees. Hicks read from his class project, which centered on the role of the humanities and what he believes to be a for-profit education system. McGuckin discussed his view of public education’s function in democratic societies. 

“They (educational institutions) create informed citizens (with) the ability to critically evaluate arguments and analyze evidence,” McGuckin said. “Most importantly, they equip us with tools to work against structures of hierarchy, inequality and domination.” 

McGuckin claimed he wanted to challenge a “narrative of fear” that he’s observed among people who disagree with President Donald Trump’s actions. According to McGuckin, students are the voice of the future and have the power to create large-scale social change.

“We are here because we care deeply about the future of our nation,” McGuckin said. “Inner conviction is a power no government or leader can take from us.”

Wendland-Liu also mentioned this, asserting his belief that Trump wants college students and faculty nationwide to be silent out of fear for their current or future professions and finances. 

“That’s not gonna save any one of us,” Wendland-Liu. “That’s not gonna save this university (or) any of the people in our community who are under attack for their existence and being as people.”

Trump’s order stated it would “return authority over education to the States and local communities,” and the President announced student aid would be shifted to the Small Business Association (SBA), an independent government agency. Closing DOE requires congressional approval. Even if it were to pass, many doubt the possibility of SBA overseeing student aid, especially in the face of staff cuts across federal agencies.

Still, the order has raised significant concern over the implications the order may have for students. However, according to Michelle Roads, the associate vice president of the University’s Office of Financial Aid & Scholarships, GVSU has not made any preemptive changes as a result of the federal order.

“We have not heard of anything that will change from the student or parent perspective, and no changes that we know of now to any financial aid amounts,” Rhodes said. 

Many students at GVSU heavily rely on Federal Student Aid to pay for their education. Sophomore Regina Lavalle is one student who relies on government aid. She explained that neither she nor her parents can pay the full cost of tuition, especially since her little brother is also starting college. Lavalle expressed worry and frustration over the current situation. 

“If there are huge changes I am not sure I will be able to continue my education,” Lavalle said. “I rely on loans and grants to pay my tuition and am not sure I will be able to pay without them. Even if the amount just lessens, that may affect me.”

Another sophomore, Sara Duffiney, also relies on federal loans to pay for her education. For her, any large changes to financial aid would mean taking out even more private loans. This has led Duffiney to feel uncertain over what her educational journey will look like over the next few years.

“I’m not really sure what I would do if I did not receive federal loans,” Duffiney said. “My only plan as of right now involves cutting out parts of my payment to Grand Valley in the next few semesters to reduce my overall bill. Some of these (cuts) include not getting a meal plan, living off campus and not purchasing a campus parking pass.”

Rhodes said students would be notified, should any updates to financial aid occur. She concluded the Office of Financial Aid & Scholarships is available to answer questions from students about FAFSA and Financial Aid. In the meantime, students can visit their webpage for clarity about FASFA. 

The Saturday, April 5 demonstration was part of a national day of action entitled “Hands Off!” Shortly before the rally got underway, a community organizer was taken into custody by Grand Rapids police officers who had a warrant out for their arrest.

Over 1,000 events were planned en-masse across the country, with the Grand Rapids rally organized by Indivisible Greater Grand Rapids, which is part of a national organization that advocates progressive politics. Michigan demonstrations were organized in Holland, Big Rapids and Muskegon, among other cities. A Lansing rally also took place at the State Capitol.

The Grand Rapids gathering included speeches, a poetry reading and activists flyering for a variety of community groups. Protesters then took to the city’s sidewalks, chanting, “This is what democracy looks like.”

Before the event began, GRPD officers arrested Emerson Wolfe, the co-chair of Palestine Solidarity Grand Rapids (PSGR). According to Wolfe, they were apprehended for a warrant that was issued after an International Women’s Day march last month. Wolfe helped facilitate the demonstration and claimed the warrant was issued for failing to obey an officer’s order, a misdemeanor. 

According to a GRPD spokesperson, officers did not seek out Wolfe but placed them under arrest after they “approached a sergeant who was meeting with event organizers.”

Wolfe was held in custody at the Kent County Jail for a short period of time, but returned to the gathering following their release. They spoke to the crowd, commenting on their arrest.

“Instead of helping us (safely protest), the Grand Rapids Police Department decided to repress our movement and arrest me as a figurehead,” Wolfe said.

Wolfe encouraged community members to “fight back” by engaging in actions that support immigrants, unions, the transgender community and the Black power movement.

Protesters, including community member Savannah Harrington, also expressed upset over what they feel is a disenfranchisement of rights for transgender and immigrant populations. Harrington was glad to see people taking action in Grand Rapids and across the country, despite what she described as the Trump administration’s attempt to stifle dissent.

“The Trump administration has tried its darndest to incite fear in the general public, making them feel like they’re not allowed to have free speech or protest,” Harrington said. “The fact that people are standing up despite that is reflective of who we are as a society.”

Grand Valley State University student Dorian Fedewa took part in the protest. He has attended previous city demonstrations and feels community members are increasingly compelled to join rallies. 

Fedewa noted the “Hands Off” gathering and similar actions have the ability to foster solidarity in times that many deem “hopeless.”

“That feeling of solidarity helps give people hope and also helps show the leaders of Grand Rapids (and) the police department that we’re not going to put up with repression and oppression,” Fedewa said.

Community member Susie Krupp said she’s felt downhearted by the state of political affairs in the United States. Yet, she voiced her excitement about the nationwide demonstrations and is hoping for “dramatic” political change.

“I really hope and feel like this could be the tide that changes things,” Krupp said.

The investigation into GVSU originated from a federal civil rights complaint filed in January by the Equal Protection Project (EPP), a conservative advocacy organization, over 11 scholarships at the University. Although the EPP asserts its commitment to equity and civil rights, it has solely filed complaints against initiatives and programs designed to assist marginalized individuals.

The EPP has also expressed strong opposition to DEI initiatives, critical race theory and the Black Lives Matter movement. Other universities, including the University of Michigan, are under investigation for partnering with the non-profit organization the PhD Project, which helps those from marginalized communities get doctoral degrees in business. GVSU and the University of Michigan are the state’s only two institutions under investigation.

“We are reviewing this communication (from the OCR) and will respond as appropriate,” said Assistant Vice President of University Communications Chris Knape. “Grand Valley State University is committed to maintaining an inclusive environment while complying with all applicable laws.”

In response to the investigation’s launch, GVSU President Philomena Mantella released a statement addressing both student and faculty concerns. According to Mantella, the University’s legal team is reviewing the notice, communicating with the OCR and gathering related information. Mantella also acknowledged the stress that the investigation may create for the campus community, but claimed the University will uphold its values while complying with the law. 

The Office of Multicultural Affairs declined to comment on the federal investigation. 

GVSU student Foster Hazen feels the University’s scholarships that are being targeted are essential in providing everyone with an opportunity to succeed academically.

“The scholarships (at GVSU) are an attempt to bridge the wealth and education gap caused by institutional racism, (and) give disadvantaged students an equitable, approximate opportunity at higher education,” said student Foster Hazen. “There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarships available to white students. Why feel entitled to the (less than a dozen scholarships) that aim to make education more accessible to your peers?” 

Hazen also noted that providing marginalized students with access to financial resources should be a top priority for educational institutions across the country.

“Having a diverse and well-supported student body is the key to having a representational workforce, which can enable change at a systemic level,” Hazen said.

The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers, the largest teacher unions in America, have filed a federal lawsuit against the investigations. The lawsuit claims the investigations are based on unconstitutionally vague and unfounded claims, especially regarding universities’ supposed violations of the Fifth Amendment. It also accuses the Trump administration of violating the First Amendment by restricting the freedom of speech in classrooms and not allowing educators to teach ethnic studies.

“Diversity, equity and inclusion programs create a sense of belonging where we all feel comfortable sharing our ideas and lived experiences,” said NEA President Becky Pringle on the NEA website. “It (DEI programs) gives people who look and sound like me, and who come from communities like mine, who speak a different language, or first-generation college students, a foot in the door and the opportunity to reach their full potential.”

The investigation into GVSU is in response to a federal complaint filed in January by the Equal Protection Project (EPP), which alleged that 11 University scholarships for BIPOC students violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

GVSU President Philomena Mantella released a statement on Friday in response to the investigation.

“Our legal team is currently reviewing this communication from OCR and gathering information to inform the university’s response and next steps,” Mantella said. “GVSU will continue to lean into its values while maintaining compliance with the law.”

The other 45 schools are being investigated for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Department of Education claims that colleges and universities have violated the act by partnering with the PhD Project, a nonprofit organization that helps minority students earn PhDs in business. One of the schools targeted by the investigation is the University of Michigan.

“Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a press release. “We will not yield on this commitment.”

The investigations follow a January “dear colleague” letter from the OCR, which served to expand on the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard verdict. The 2023 Supreme Court ruling banned race-based admissions for colleges and universities. In the letter, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor argued that DEI programs promote stereotypes, and that various universities actively discriminate against white and Asian students. The memo is already being challenged in two federal lawsuits. 

According to the Department of Education’s press release, the schools under investigation for alleged impermissible race-based scholarships and race-based segregation are as follows. The school being investigated specifically for alleged segregation has not yet been identified by the Department of Education.

• Grand Valley State University   
• Ithaca College  
• New England College of Optometry   
• University of Alabama  
• University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 
• University of South Florida  
• University of Oklahoma, Tulsa School of Community Medicine 

The following universities are under investigation for allegedly engaging in race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs.

• Arizona State University-Main Campus  
• Boise State University  
• Cal Poly Humboldt  
• California State University – San Bernadino  
• Carnegie Mellon University  
• Clemson University  
• Cornell University  
• Duke University  
• Emory University  
• George Mason University  
• Georgetown University  
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)  
• Montana State University-Bozeman   
• New York University (NYU)  
• Rice University  
• Rutgers University  
• The Ohio State University-Main Campus  
• Towson University  
• Tulane University  
• University of Arkansas – Fayetteville   
• University of California-Berkeley  
• University of Chicago  
• University of Cincinnati – Main Campus  
• University of Colorado – Colorado Springs
• University of Delaware  
• University of Kansas  
• University of Kentucky  
• University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 
• University of Minnesota-Twin Cities  
• University of Nebraska at Omaha  
• University of New Mexico – Main Campus  
• University of North Dakota – Main Campus  
• University of North Texas – Denton   
• University of Notre Dame  
• University of NV – Las Vegas  
• University of Oregon  
• University of Rhode Island  
• University of Utah  
• University of Washington-Seattle  
• University of Wisconsin-Madison  
• University of Wyoming  
• Vanderbilt University  
• Washington State University 
• Washington University in St. Louis  
• Yale University 

The United States has gone from being, at the very least, a respected country, to an embarrassment at best and adversary at worst, considering Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and the pathetic tariff slap fights. To be honest, the Trump administration’s horrors have been so extensively covered that they hardly need any further direct mention in this column. Instead, I would like to examine the action, or lack thereof, from the other side of the proverbial aisle. 

The Democrats have essentially been controlled opposition against the Trump administration. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies, for example, has expressed great frustration toward grassroots democratic organizations who dare ask Democratic leadership to develop a confrontational approach against the man they spent all 2024 branding as a fascist. While the Democratic Party’s leadership has been embarrassingly timid in the wake of the Republicans’ hostile government, they have been happy to shut down any genuine left-wing opposition any chance they get. 

This is evident in the party’s voting to censure Al Green for berating Trump during the State Of The Union, publicly expressing their wish to abandon the progressive causes they have held electorally hostage for years and their utterly shameless capitulation to Republicans surrounding the threat of a government shutdown.

Clearly, for all of us who are at risk by the Trump administration, the tactic of hoping and praying the Democrats will care about these issues as much as we do is a failing strategy. For us to secure our futures and our freedoms, we must look elsewhere. We must look beyond the charade of electoral politics, which has so clearly been shown to be ineffective toward lasting solutions.

To achieve this, I believe we need to look toward our communities instead of elected representatives who give their word they will protect their constituents, but may not hold up their end of the deal. For example, queer folk should organize around their shared protection instead of putting their trust in politicians of either party. Similarly, rather than electing representatives who promise to raise the minimum wage, working people should organize and strike until their wages are raised according to their work. 

When I think of the face of the Trump resistance, I don’t think of Democratic figures such as Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, John Fetterman or Gary Peters. Instead, I think of a photo I saw, in which an unnamed Cincinnati resident used a burning swastika flag to light their cigarette, following the takeover of an Ohio overpass by Neo-Nazis. The display of hatred was soon interrupted by a wave of armed and masked community members swarming the scene. It is important to remember this example of communal resistance if we are to push back against the Trump administration’s agenda.

According to the Associated Press, an ICE agent justified the arrest to Khalil’s lawyer by stating the act was based on State Department orders to rescind Khalil’s student visa. In response, Khalil’s attorney clarified that the student graduated in December, and has since obtained a permanent green card, which allows him to live and work permanently in the U.S. The ICE agent then stated that Khalil’s green card was being revoked. While the subject of immigration has always been a hot topic among the Trump administration, the focus has always been on undocumented citizens– until now. Given Khalil’s legal status, we wonder where the line is being drawn between acceptable expressions of protest and forms that put individuals at risk of being detained. Not only that, but it is cause to question whether or not this idea of arresting protesters could extend to natural-born citizens. 

The day following Khalil’s arrest, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared a statement on X, posting, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” We think that Rubio’s post and related rhetoric being spread by the Trump administration is an absolute violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, and is discourteous to individuals that have been given even a legal right to live in America.

Tricia McLaughlin, the spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, expanded on Rubio’s point, stating the arrest was “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting antisemitism.” We find one obvious problem with this ideology: being anti-Israel isn’t the same as being antisemitic. Antisemitism is a form of prejudice or discrimination directed toward Jewish individuals or groups, while anti-Israel sentiments are often used to critique the Israeli government and its behavior concerning Palestinian land and people.

Labeling Palestine activists as antisemitic is a portrayal that not only makes pro-Palestine people and organizations appear to have an inaccurately harmful agenda but also impacts the general feeling of safety and security among Jewish individuals worldwide. People protesting for Palestine are, by and large, not a threat to the Jewish community, and are typically pushing for the safety of the individuals living in war zones. However, to make pro-Palestine protesters seem threatening, many turn to instilling fear or anger, and refer to demonstrators as antisemitic in an attempt to rally more people to their cause.

It is also important to note there is a variety of opinions among people who hold pro-Palestine sentiments. While some protesters believe in a two-state solution, others openly support the Palestinian resistance. The Trump administration’s rhetoric surrounding pro-Palestine demonstrators also implies that protesters at large maintain the same personal beliefs. 

When it comes to how the Trump administration has framed the actions of pro-Palestine individuals and organizations, we particularly take issue with the term “un-American.” This term is inherently flawed, as American values aren’t a concrete set of ideals that are true for every American citizen. Additionally, we feel the Trump administration, and in a broader sense, the majority of elected officials, have been hypocritical in their assessment of protesters. Officials name protesters as dangerous individuals, ignoring the truth of their own cause, which supports U.S. allyship with Israel.  

In just a number of weeks, the longtime party of so-called free speech and limited government has cosigned some of the most authoritarian actions we’ve ever seen from a sitting president. After Trump publicly stated that he and the executive branch “are the federal law,” the administration cannot possibly be in a position to claim or enforce what is or isn’t “un-American.” This push to deport those who are protesting against violence toward the Palestinian people only further highlights the government’s hypocrisy.

Regardless of the way our government is framing the pro-Palestine “agenda,” ultimately demonstrations have been aimed at ending violence against the Palestinian people and expressing upset at our government’s support of the devastation that has occurred thus far. We believe that citizens should feel safe to speak out for what they believe in without the fear of being attacked by their own government. Khalil’s case shows a disturbing pivot away from free speech, one of the United States’ founding values. The bottom line is that Americans should be able to exercise their freedom of speech – in this case, concerning Palestine – without being at risk of deportation.

On Tuesday, Jan. 21, Trump revoked standing policies that had limited where and how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can carry out arrests. Since Trump’s action allows ICE to enter schools and churches, the policy’s revocation has spurred many concerns among staff at GVSU.

Trump’s removal of safeguards for ICE operations led several faculty members to reach out to the University for guidance. 

GVSU professors within the Philosophy and History Departments sent messages of concern to various University figures, including Grand Valley Police Chief Brandon DeHaan, Acting Provost Jennifer Drake and the Director of People, Equity and Culture, Robert Shorty. The University’s answer was the same across the board– concerned parties should reach out to the Office of General Counsel or GVPD, and follow Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) guidelines.

“I was wanting something (communication) a little bit more forceful (from the University) when the Trump administration took over,” said Mike Huner, a GVSU history professor that reached out to Drake.

Neither DeHaan nor Shorty responded to the Lanthorn’s request for comment on the subject.

Under FERPA, no professor is legally allowed to disclose information about a student without written consent, which would apply to ICE agents in the classroom. Should the situation arise, professors are advised to direct any in-classroom conflict with ICE to the Office of General Counsel for their expertise with legal issues. The Office of General Counsel was unavailable for comment at the time of publication.

Huner credits Drake for her response, but persists that GVSU should do more to respond to immigration-related concerns.

“I would appreciate if a more generalized statement from the upper administration speaking to those matters (ICE presence) would be circulated,” Huner said.

Huner considers Grand Rapids Public Schools’ response to recent federal policy effective. The school district issued a detailed guideline in January advising teachers how to respond if ICE comes into their schools. 

Huner recommends those with immigration concerns attend a Know Your Rights presentation, which provides information on immigration law to students and faculty. The University’s Inclusion and Equity Institute will be holding a presentation on Friday, Feb. 28.

Campus response to ICE presence has also been a topic of conversation within both GVSU Housing and Residence Life and the University’s Tutoring and Reading Center. Faculty and staff received the same, aforementioned guidelines– to contact the Office of General Counsel if a situation with ICE should arise on campus.

“My chief concern will first and foremost always just be the safety of our students,” said Keigh-Cee Bell, director of Tutoring and Supplemental Instruction at the Tutoring and Reading Center. “I want the Tutoring and Reading Center, and all of our tutoring centers, to be a safe and healthy learning environment for everybody.”

On Feb. 3, the University launched a webpage to share information and guidelines related to any changes connected with federal policy actions. This page posted the same guidelines sent to faculty and staff. Beyond the brief message, no further guidelines or protocols have been shared by GVSU.

It seems faculty and staff concerns spread past immigration policy and response. Many faculty members feel there is not enough communication from the University regarding a number of the Trump administration’s actions.

“If you ask around, it’s not just this (ICE-related policy),” stated a GVSU professor, who asked to remain anonymous due to the issue’s sensitivity. “It’s other issues concerning executive actions coming from (President Trump). If you ask around, you’ll find concerns from other faculty about why there isn’t more forceful statements coming from the upper administration of the University.”

Many of Trump’s actions appear to be guided by the much-maligned document, Project 2025– a plan that outlines an authoritarian takeover of the federal government. While Trump claimed publicly to have no connection to the document, many of his actions as president have fallen right in line with the plan’s strategy, from this consistent use of executive orders to the installment of loyalists in federal agencies. 

Among these actions, Trump has issued a decree granting himself total control and oversight of all independent regulatory agencies in the federal government. This is in addition to his order declaring only the president and attorney general have the power to interpret laws– a power historically reserved to courts. I see this as Trump and his administration doubling down in one of the most drastic power grabs ever attempted by a sitting president.  

These actions come as much of his agenda has been challenged and halted in court, amid concern that he and his administration will simply ignore the court decisions. This certainly would come as no surprise, given statements from Vice President JD Vance that essentially dare the courts to try and enforce their rulings. All of this is occurring as Trump makes quick work of severing any goodwill Ukraine may have held for the United States, as he cozies up to Russia in negotiations to end the ongoing war. 

At this point, it is irresponsible and dangerous to ignore the facts of this situation. Trump is attempting to consolidate all power in the federal government, disregarding the independence of government agencies and even governmental branches’ separation of power. Trump, as his recent social media behaviors would indicate, wishes to become the king of the United States. This ideal was cemented even further at the CPAC convention from Feb. 21-24, where the idea of a third Trump term was made a clear goal of the committee in a night of anti-immigrant sentiments, chainsaws and more Nazi salutes. We can’t ignore the reality of what Trump is trying to do. Trump will not rest until he has shredded the Constitution, only to piece it together to his liking, leaving a broken nation in his wake. 

For their part, the Democratic Party’s leadership does not seem to have gotten the memo regarding the situation that, frankly, we all saw coming for months. The party’s leadership, and primarily Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have been incredibly slow and weak in responding to Trump’s authoritarian takeover. This has caused a surge of progressive Democrats to begin organizing for their vision of a militant Democratic Party, one capable of not just fighting Trump, but delivering on the progressive policies that so many people look to the party for. This, in my opinion, will be critical if we wish to make it past this Trump term. 

Ignoring and downplaying Trump’s authoritarian tendencies while relying on the very government he is dismantling to check his power is a completely asinine strategy. If Trump wants to be a king, the Democratic Party must be active and militant in shutting down his agenda.

The Trump administration’s plan emphasizes content restrictions and calls for the dismantling of diversity teaching in educational settings. Trump is pushing for cuts to federal funding for schools or programs with curriculums that include critical race theory, “gender ideology” and other topics having to do with race, gender, or LGBTQIA+ material. Those in support of dismantling DOE are vocal about embracing an “American way of life” as the reason for such drastic change. However, we completely oppose such a standpoint and believe that if our government truly wants to embrace an American way of life, then they must allow for all diverse populations in our country to be accepted, and support their existence through the policies and plans proposed by the administration.

Instead, one of the main motives behind the Trump administration’s approach to education is an attempt to “end radical indoctrination,” according to one of the many executive orders signed by the President. The order serves to “instill a patriotic admiration for our incredible Nation and the values for which we stand.” What’s clear to us here is that the Trump administration isn’t battling indoctrination in schools, it’s attempting to implement it. Indoctrination is defined as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Attempting to implant a particular view of the U.S. government in the minds and hearts of young people is in and of itself, indoctrination. Instead of shying away from the wrongdoings committed historically by the United States, we should prioritize educating students. We feel that doing so can stop history from repeating itself, and foster diverse communities within American culture. 

However, the motivation to exclude diverse identities in U.S. education has already had an impact on institutional communities, such as at Grand Valley State University. On Feb. 4, 2025, DOE released a statement noting a change in FAFSA form questions. The release explicitly reads as follows, “FAFSA forms will rightfully reflect the biological reality that there are only two sexes: male and female. Department officials will remove “nonbinary” as a gender identification option from the current year’s FAFSA form.” We find this change highly relevant, considering a 2022 Pew Research report noted that roughly 5% of young adults in the United States self-identified as nonbinary or transgender. This is an extremely disappointing example of flattening culture by erasing inclusive language in government documents.

Reflecting on this setback in visibility, we are frustrated by the lack of acknowledgment of a very real, and historically neglected margin of the population. Despite Trump’s agenda, transgender and gender-non-conforming people exist and have since the beginning of time. Such individuals are valid, contributing members of our society, and regardless of the lack of support from this administration, will continue to seek out higher education. Erasing the option to disclose gender identity on government forms associated with education does not change identity, instead, it is simply an embarrassing attempt to silence a population that is already under constant scrutiny. 

Ultimately, we believe that incorporating a diverse range of perspectives in education is what leads to social progress, and should not be limited by our government. Rather than stifling access to information and attempting to exclude diverse identities from the classroom, we should embrace the benefits that come from having varying cultural perspectives. Dissenting opinion is what led to the abolition of slavery and segregation, women’s suffrage and the legalization of same-sex marriage. To continue progressing as a society, the general public desperately needs to acknowledge and embrace diversity in all aspects of education rather than attempting to enforce outdated cultural norms.