President Donald Trump’s administration has initiated a continuous assault on university life, the First Amendment, student journalism and civil rights just 86 days into his term. Our papers — the Michigan Daily, the Grand Valley Lanthorn and the Ferris State Torch — have witnessed the onslaught to varying degrees in our own backyards. As journalists and students, we are watching an attack on the rights of our peers with a simultaneous shift to cowardice by university administrations. This is not just happening in Michigan, but across the entire country. 

Following a summer of protests and the violent removal of a pro-Palestine encampment at the University of Michigan, there has been a retaliation from the highest office in the country. After the federal government dangled $400 million of federal funding in their faces, Columbia administrators agreed to ban protesting students from wearing face masks, hire additional security personnel and review the school’s Middle Eastern studies department. These concessions are taking place on varying scales across the country, with the University of Maine serving as another example. To win back funding, the institution announced it will not allow trans women to compete in women’s sports.

When students enroll in school, they do so under the assumption their university will look out for them. That assumption has been proven wrong. Universities are failing to deliver for their students, as administrators have prioritized their pocketbooks over the security of their students. 

Student journalists and activist groups have warned that the values defining higher education are under attack. As diversity, equity and inclusion programs come under assault, immigration officers descend upon our campuses and LGBTQ+ protections are stripped away, our schools have either stood in silence or actively fallen in line with the president’s demands, and in the process, our universities have been pulled from under us.

In a shameful move, U-M announced campus-wide cuts to DEI initiatives through the closure of both its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Office of Health, Equity and Inclusion. The Wall Street Journal reports that University of Michigan President Santa Ono is “ready to play ball with Trump’s Washington.” He’s not the only one. 

At Grand Valley State University, students and faculty have expressed concern over a lack of communication about campus immigration and customs enforcement guidelines. In March, GVSU administration altered and cut language in the university’s harassment policy to fall in line with the most recent federal court rulings, which reverted Title IX policies back to those of the first Trump administration.

For Ferris State University, a lack of student protests has seemingly equated to little to no concerns about federal crackdowns. However, we argue that it’s a safe bet that members of targeted communities are most likely living with fear. At the very least, we think our universities should be affirming the safety of students who have drawn the ire of the federal government. 

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security revoked the visas of current and former U-M, GVSU and Central Michigan University students. Places of higher education have a duty to protect students, whether that be from ICE arrests, the federal government’s gutting of resources for marginalized students or the erasure of scholarship and curricula. However, none of our schools have appropriately safeguarded students from the federal government’s harm.

Following the detainment of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University doctoral student who wrote a pro-Palestine op-ed in her school’s newspaper, Tufts’ president issued a statement of support for Ozturk and called for her release. We applaud the actions being taken by Tufts University and feel higher-ed administrations nationwide should be exerting the same strength to shield their students from Trump’s grip.

Just this week, Harvard refused to capitulate to the Trump administration’s demands, saying the university is “not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.” We believe that Harvard’s stance should be replicated by other universities, yet we also acknowledge the school’s hand in repressing pro-Palestine activists. While not all higher-ed institutions are private like Harvard, the protection of students should be universal. 

At the moment, we don’t feel our institutions would stand up and speak out. We’ve seen our administrations quickly cave to the pressure of both the Trump administration and wealthy benefactors time and time again. Above all, university officials appear to be more worried about their finances than the communities they are meant to serve.

Our papers cover these issues in order to help students parse through the hectic media landscape. In most cases, university leadership either briefly responds through email or flat out declines to comment. Administrators should be engaging in communication with student reporters during this difficult time. We feel as if instead of supporting their students, many higher-ed officials are cowardly hiding being a wall of vague and ambiguous policy. 

As journalists, we feel a responsibility to amplify campus voices, and as scholars ourselves, we’re imploring our administrations to safeguard students from harm’s way and preserve freedom of expression. It’s up to students and university community members to continue speaking out and advocating for the future they want to see on their campuses — a space free of repression and oppression — in Michigan and beyond.

Cheap nostalgia: Disney live-action renditions lack fresh interpretations

Within the past decade, there has been an increase in the production of live-action remakes of many beloved animated films. Disney is by far the largest contributor in this phenomenon, as they appear to be working through their collection of classic animations, most recently debuting the live action “Snow White,” released last month.

Disney has the ability to revamp stories because the company is not the creator of the tales they showcase, many of which are based in folklore. While we understand the immersive appeal of live-action movies, there seems to be a level of halfhearted handiwork on Disney’s part. Many of these live-action remakes include changes that aren’t really significant enough to bring a fresh or interesting take to the source material. Rather than watching a well-coordinated adaptation of animated films or an experimental take, viewers are left with recycled remakes that don’t respect their source material.

In our view, Disney doesn’t seem able to consistently churn out films that are either innovative or thoughtful in their retellings. This dilemma results in remakes that feel like a cheap attempt to appeal to nostalgia rather than create renditions or expand on beloved fairy tales. It’s our view that Disney should be more intentional with their remakes instead of throwing in unnecessary additives. We believe Disney should honor original films with quality shot-for-shot remakes or clearly offer consistent, fresh renditions in an effort to not muddle people’s perceptions of beloved tales.

To read more of the Lanthorn staff’s editorial, click here.

Political polarization leads Kendrick Lamar halftime critiques

Shortly after sweeping the Grammys with the diss track “Not Like Us,” Kendrick Lamar took the stage at the Caesar’s Superdome in New Orleans for the most-viewed Super Bowl Halftime Show in history. This wasn’t Lamar’s first time performing at the Super Bowl— he appeared alongside Dr. Dre, Mary J. Blige, Snoop Dogg, and Eminem during the 2022 Super Bowl, which marked the first halftime show to focus entirely on hip-hop. With guests including SZA, Mustard, Samuel L. Jackson and Serena Williams, Lamar used his performance to make a statement; against Drake, of course, but also about greater themes of patriotism and political division.

Jackson, who served as a narrator through the performance, was decked out in a patriotic suit, and personified Uncle Sam. As the Root reported, “Uncle Sam was supposed to represent the ‘sanitized’ America. The America that makes most of the Super Bowl viewers comfortable.”

The show was filled with symbolism, with dancers on the main stage dressed head-to-toe in red, white and blue. During the opening notes of Lamar’s 2017 hit “HUMBLE,” the dancers arranged to form an American flag. The choreography continued, and the flag formation split down the middle, which we see as symbolizing the division within our current political system.

To read more of the Lanthorn staff’s editorial, click here.

Brat or not brat: “We’re bumpin’ that”

Ranking No. 3 on the Billboard music charts, the album “brat” by Charli xcx is more than the soundtrack to our summer. After “brat” released on June 7, the chaotic, high energy album became a viral sensation, and has transformed into an aesthetic and lifestyle trend called “brat summer. Brat summer has swarmed social media and truly took on a life of its own. We are certainly “bumpin’ that.”

One of the trends associated with “Brat” is its lime green album cover– the new color of the summer. The color has had an impact similar to the aesthetic trends of last summer’s blockbuster movie release, “Barbie.”

The singer has defined brat summer as an aesthetic for messy and rebellious party girls to embrace a lifestyle of being your perfectly imperfect self. The trend has been deemed by the general public as an opposite of the “clean girl” aesthetic of 2022, which popularized a groomed and filtered version of femininity. Here at the Lanthorn, we think this acceptance of a real and sometimes messy lifestyle is “so Julia.”

To read more of the Lanthorn staff’s editorial, click here.

Columns

Ranking every Michigan record store I’ve visited

Since starting my music collection in 2018, visiting record stores has become one of my favorite activities– whether that be shopping with friends or my dad, who’s also restarted his own collection. I’ve made a habit of stopping at shops while on mini-vacations or driving through new towns. That being said, I’ve taken the time to rank all of the 13 stores in Michigan that have had me flipping through vinyl. A majority of the shops I’ve ranked are located in West Michigan, however there are a couple exceptions. My list is, in-part, determined by both my preferred selection and the type of shopping experience I enjoy most.

To read more of Hailey Hentz’s column, click here.

Written rivalry: What the Anchor-Bone Classic means to our newspapers

When talking about rivalries in sports, there are plenty of options. Michigan and Michigan State or Michigan and Ohio State are easy answers for Michiganders. Those aren’t the rivalries the Torch and the Lanthorn have the honor of covering.

Our small, midwestern newspapers get to say that we cover the Anchor Bone Classic. It’s built into the DNA of Bulldogs and Lakers to have the date of the Grand Valley and Ferris game circled, either mentally or physically.

Every fall, the Lanthorn releases an article about the Grand Valley versus Ferris game– an article that encapsulates the antagonism and excitement that repeats with unfaltering intensity. With a corresponding photo on the newspaper’s cover, the yearly edition arguably represents school spirit and what it means to “be a Laker” better than any of our editions.

In pages divided up between the latest news, club features and individual Lakers’ columns, pride for Grand Valley normally takes many forms. But when it comes to the edition highlighting the rivalry game, devotion to school spirit is in one substantial place, taking the form of a two-page blue, black, and white compilation.

To read more of Hailey Hentz and Dylan Rider’s column, click here.

Beyond ceasefire: Advocating against apartheid is a continued fight

More than 471 days since Oct. 7, 2023, the day so many of us have been asking for, praying for and demanding, has finally come to pass. A ceasefire has successfully been brokered between Israel and Hamas, ending the former’s genocidal slaughter of the Gaza Strip. For many, and certainly myself, this is cause for celebration. We’ve witnessed war crimes unlike anything our generation has ever seen broadcast daily on our devices. After over a year, we can finally look forward to an imminent ending of the terror and a relative return to “normal.” However, I must urge you to look at what this “normal” entails. While the bombing may stop, we still must continue to advocate for the Palestinian people.

To read more of Jace Perroud’s column, click here.

GV administration should protect students from Trump’s agenda

Like other students at Grand Valley State University, I have become increasingly anxious about the state of America following the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump on Monday, Jan. 20. The inauguration was notably attended by wealthy tech executives and several high-ranking politicians from both parties. The occasion was also filled with much of the hyper-nationalistic rhetoric we have come to expect from Trump, who declared that America would “pursue (its) manifest destiny into the stars.” While the speech captured many people’s attention, it was Trump’s actions soon after that became the main cause of alarm.

Within hours of entering office, Trump began a wave of executive orders and plans, including, but not limited to, the pardoning of all involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, a requirement that all federal employees stop working remotely and even a rename of the Gulf Of Mexico to the “Gulf Of America.” Most concerning, however, are Trump’s attacks on immigration and diversity.

To read more of Jace Perroud’s column, click here.

Reducing financial burdens could improve the college experience

Being broke is a common stereotype for us college students. In most cases, this stereotype reigns true with many of us living paycheck to paycheck and feeling the constant stress of finances. I believe that without the extremely high cost of course materials, housing and tuition we wouldn’t be in such a bad situation. I feel that almost all things related to college should be more affordable.

High costs of university expenses cause major stress and anxiety. Nearly every four-year student has some kind of debt stacked up before the end of their college experience. If the cost of college and materials were cheaper, I think the number of students with debt would be drastically decreased. I can attest to the anxiety that having future debt gives students.

I personally worry about my future and the financial burden my student debt might cause me. Students worry not only about debt, but also semester bills they don’t take out loans for. I’ve had friends cry over expenses and wonder how they’re going to pay. Not every student has the benefit of financial aid– they have to pay their bills immediately. While many students do barely manage to pay, there’s still a large number of students who end up dropping out because they cannot afford the cost of college.

To read more of Gabrielle Ray’s column, click here.

Disney has the ability to revamp stories because the company is not the creator of the tales they showcase, many of which are based in folklore. While we understand the immersive appeal of live-action movies, there seems to be a level of halfhearted handiwork on Disney’s part. Many of these live-action remakes include changes that aren’t really significant enough to bring a fresh or interesting take to the source material. Rather than watching a well-coordinated adaptation of animated films or an experimental take, viewers are left with recycled remakes that don’t respect their source material.

In the context of “Snow White,” the film’s creators attempted to make creative changes, while simultaneously clutching Disney’s originally animated story. The film seemed eager to capitalize on the dwarves’ backstories, but each of their nuances weren’t apparent after their character introductions. Snow White was also saved by a new love interest instead of the prince. These are just some changes that make the film notably different from the original. However, such alterations don’t offer any creative liberties to the story of Snow White as a whole.

Following the film’s release, box office results revealed the film is underperforming, so much so that Disney paused their originally planned remake of 2010’s “Tangled.” This shows that in order to produce a well-received remake, films must be created in an extremely thoughtful manner, and Snow White fell flat on this.

While most of Disney’s live-action remakes have received backlash in some way, we observed their success when it comes to films that stay true to their original plots. For instance, although not a fairy tale, Disney’s 2019 “The Lion King” the 2017 “Beauty and the Beast” are the two top-grossing live-action remakes, according to box office results. In both films, we see the plot mimicking the original 1990s cartoons almost identically, giving new generations an updated graphic appeal and returning fans warm nostalgia.

We see the respectful replication of original storylines as the key factor that made these two remakes so successful. “The Lion King” kept the original characters and plot, updating the nostalgic cartoon style to a more realistic CGI. Disney even had returning voice actors from the original 1994 cartoon to keep the characters alive with realistic animals. “Beauty and the Beast” was praised for its casting, with the original voice actress of the 1991 Belle, Paige O’Hara, applauding the casting of Emma Watson. This film successfully transformed a classic cartoon into a visually stunning live action that immersed viewers into a magical world. 

However, Disney has also had success with bringing fresh twists to classic fairy tales. One shining example was the 2010 remake of “Alice in Wonderland.” Disney brought on Tim Burton to direct, whose signature aesthetic gave the already wacky world of Wonderland a visually provocative feel. Burton altered the plot to focus on Alice being more of a prophetic savior who rescues Wonderland from the Red Queen rather than keeping the whimsical “dream story” of the original 1951 cartoon. Burton’s darker take gives the story a fresh sense of edge and elevates Alice’s character from a “silly little girl” to a powerful heroine who literally slays a dragon. The remake serves as a perfect example of Disney taking a classic story and providing a fresh take that’s full of intention and purpose. 

In our view, Disney doesn’t seem able to consistently churn out films that are either innovative or thoughtful in their retellings. This dilemma results in remakes that feel like a cheap attempt to appeal to nostalgia rather than create renditions or expand on beloved fairy tales. It’s our view that Disney should be more intentional with their remakes instead of throwing in unnecessary additives. We believe Disney should honor original films with quality shot-for-shot remakes or clearly offer consistent, fresh renditions in an effort to not muddle people’s perceptions of beloved tales.

We feel this year’s lineup boasts a much stronger program than last year’s festival, as many artists are award-winning and hold massive audience appeal. Nearly every headliner is in the upper echelon of the music industry, while the emerging artists are making waves in their own regard. However, this makes tickets highly coveted, despite their high prices that rise each year. 

Lollapalooza began as a traveling festival in 1991 as a farewell tour for the rock band Jane’s Addiction. From there, it became a space dedicated to showcasing countercultural punk and alternative cultures. Lollapalooza became an annual festival after Grant Park was made its home in 2005 and has returned almost every August since, evolving from its roots to feature pop, country, hip-hop and, in recent years, K-pop artists. 

This summer will see headlining artists like Luke Combs, Olivia Rodrigo, TWICE and Sabrina Carpenter. Due to the festival’s more recent, packed lineup, it is undeniable the event has somewhat strayed from its original state of catering to a more niche audience. Despite this, we can’t help but be excited to see such widely recognized performers prepped for Lollapalooza.

This excitement is reiterated as, on average, 400,000 people attend the festival each year. People travel from all over the U.S. to experience Lollapalooza, which in 2023 was reportedly the third most popular music festival in the U.S. We believe the evolution of Lollapalooza’s audience is worthy of applause, while also acknowledging the genres that have been neglected in the process. Changing the festival’s image allows for a broad, welcoming culture to cultivate in Chicago.

This year, we are excited to see pop queens Sabrina Carpenter and Olivia Rodrigo headlining and representing women in the industry. TWICE will also be the first K-pop girl group to headline Lollapalooza, with male groups like TXT and Stray Kids having headlined in recent years. Additionally, we’re thrilled to see a new genre expansion, with Luke Combs serving as the first country artist to headline the festival. 

Lollapalooza’s ticket price has also evolved with its artistry. Tickets in the festival’s early years only cost around $31.50 for two-day admission. In 2025, general admission, four-day presale tickets started at $415. Ticket presale opened the morning of Thursday, March 20 with the intention of opening to the general public only an hour later. Unfortunately, four-day passes sold out before the general sale even began because early-bird fans and panic-buyers filled the queue.

While we recognize the steep price and the barriers created for those who cannot afford skyrocketing prices, we also view Lollapalooza as an investment to see a variety of admired artists. Unsurprisingly, the high cost of tickets is a deterrent for many, while other music fans are more than happy to spend hundreds of dollars to see a variety of their favorite artists. Regardless, this year’s program features massive stars from popular genres, making it clear Lollapalooza has immensely evolved and is cultivating a culture that celebrates a range of musical styles.

When it comes to other forms of media, particularly music and film, content warnings and rating systems are common. When a parent takes their kid to see a movie, it’s usually clear what they’re getting themselves into, as films are rated based on how appropriate the content is for younger audiences. When a parent goes to buy their kid an album, it’s clear whether or not the record contains explicit material since every explicit album is marked with a “parental advisory” sticker. However, this is not the case with books. 

While a book’s title or cover may hint at what kind of story is being told, they can often be misleading, and result in content being consumed by the wrong audience. This is why we see the need for a maturity rating system for books so that audiences can better know what to expect before reading or purchasing a book. Despite parental guidance being available, we feel that resources shouldn’t have to be sought out by those looking to be informed– rather, content warnings and ratings should be readily available and visible. 

According to a 2020 study published by the National Institute of Health, there is a proven correlation between exposure to sexually explicit media exposure in early adolescence and risky sexual behavior. The study shows how media exposure can be linked to early sexual experiences, unsafe sex (leading to unwanted pregnancies and STIs) and even mental struggles, such as depression. This illustrates the very real consequences tied to youth running across inappropriate material, unmonitored, which, especially in the digital age, raises several alarm bells for us. 

The study’s authors recommend early education on media literacy, which we definitely agree with. However, this simple plan is based on a one-size-fits-all approach that, in our opinion, can’t appropriately solve such a widespread issue. Many books, such as “It Happened One Summer” by Tessa Bailey, are regarded as sweet romance books, based on their title and innocent, playful-looking covers. However, upon reading, the books’ content quickly becomes very sexual and graphic. While the books are technically targeted toward an adult audience, we challenge whether the line regarding age-appropriate content is drawn clearly enough based on a first impression of their covers.

Our solution is the creation of a book rating system. Libraries and bookstores often separate content based on age group, by having kid sections, teen offerings and adult areas. We propose that books should be clearly marked by their recommended reading age. Whether that be up to the decision of beta readers based on established criteria, or a formal board and application process developed through major publishers, we feel that streamlining an approach to what levels of inappropriate content can be expected would be beneficial in preventing youth exposure to arguably dangerous or otherwise negatively influential content. 

To give an example, the Motion Picture Association seems to have their similar system all figured out. Having rated nearly 30,000 films since 1968, they’ve long been a model for categorizing the age-friendliness of media, and their website details this model as follows.

• General Audiences (G): Nothing that would offend parents for viewing by children
• Parental Guidance Suggested (PG): May contain some material parents might not like for young children
• Parents Strongly Cautioned (PG-13): Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers
• Restricted (R): Contains some adult material
• No One 17 and Under Admitted (NC-17): Clearly adult, children not admitted

In the music world, they have “Parental Advisory: Explicit Content” (PAL) warnings, which are often featured on album covers’ graphics. The Recording Industry Association of America defines the warnings as a voluntary initiative between record companies and artists that can assist parents and guardians in being more informed on what media they choose to consume. This same model could be implemented for literature by featuring a warning on the cover, which would serve as a caution for families, retailers and ebook providers to ensure that content marked as mature is clearly separated from general audience content.

In a time when younger generations have unregulated access to many forms of media online, it is important that both youths and their parents can be informed about what content is inside a book, and whether or not it is suitable for the individual. Implementing a book rating system similar to those in place for other forms of popular media can help steer young readers toward genres and authors that are appropriate for their stage of maturity and development. We believe this could  decrease young audiences’ exposure to explicit content, and could ultimately improve the younger generation’s engagement with reading in appropriate genres. 

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.

The plot of the movie follows Karla Sofía Gascón’s character, Mexican cartel boss Emilia Pérez,  who fakes her death to escape violence. To do so, Pérez medically transitions genders with the help of her lawyer. Immediately, the plot raised red flags for many LGBTQ+ activists. Despite Gascón making history as the first openly transgender actress to be nominated at the Oscars, GLAAD published a compilation of critiques, calling the film a “step backward for trans representation.” We couldn’t agree more.

While the story technically centers around a transgender woman, it depicts Pérez as someone who is transitioning for monetary gain and escape from her past life. This representation does not at all align with the complex relationship between self expression and gender identity actually experienced by transgender people. It felt as if those behind the camera in “Emilia Pérez” didn’t properly research or familiarize themselves with real trans experiences. That, or they simply did not care enough to portray the experience accurately.

We feel the film’s surface-level and stereotypical depiction of the transgender community should have been enough to take it out of Academy Award consideration; but the controversy doesn’t end there. The film also depicts Mexican culture in a harmful and stereotypical manner. While crime is an issue for all countries, it is especially prevalent in stereotypes of Mexican culture. It is disappointing that a film made to highlight Mexican culture reverts back to displaying such a stereotypical, crime-centered portrayal of Mexico.

In response to this criticism, French filmmaker Jacques Audiard actually admitted that he hadn’t done much research on Mexico before creating the film. This disconnect between Audiard and the communities he was attempting to depict has become a major issue to many Mexican viewers, who felt the film was not a proper portrayal. As viewers and journalists (a profession in the extended family of filmmakers) we can’t understand why Audiard failed to conduct proper research, especially since he is not part of the Mexican or transgender communities.

During Zoe Saldaña’s acceptance speech for “Best Supporting Actress” she graciously acknowledged Mexican culture and passionately spoke Spanish, which seemed to highlight the importance of the film’s setting. However, Saldaña’s response to a confrontation by a journalist who found the movie “really hurtful for us Mexicans” immediately afterwards gave a different narrative.

She offered a blanket apology to those who felt offended, but discredited it by saying, “I don’t share your opinion. For me, the heart of this movie was not Mexico. We weren’t making a film about a country, we were making a film about four women.” 

By dismissing criticism, Saldaña’s reply illuminates our key issue with “Emilia Pérez.” The film used both transgender and Mexican identities as a mask to receive praise, not caring to create genuine portrayals.

Further, neither of the actresses’ acceptance speeches mentioned the transgender community, despite the basis of the plot spotlighting a trans woman. The speeches instead centered the portrayal of women, and the movie’s songwriters awkwardly sang the name Emilia over and over again for an uncomfortably long time.

If this wasn’t enough to sink the film’s reputation, multiple Islamophobic and racist posts resurfaced from Gascón’s social media account on X, formerly known as Twitter. This led Gascón to issue an apology and, promptly, delete her X account. On top of our preexisting criticism, this development further creates a negative image of “Emilia Pérez” and its cast.

All in all, we find “Emilia Pérez” had the potential to be a beacon moment of representation for marginalized communities; but it was, ultimately, a trainwreck of a film. The work was created by a white, cisgender French man who knew nothing about the complexity of the transgender and Mexican identities that he was portraying, and it comes across in the film. Instead, the director exploited both topics to receive critical praise under the guise of representation.

We wish we could celebrate successful and authentic Mexican and trans representation in the award-winning movie; unfortunately, we feel “Emilia Perez” fell entirely flat of any impactful representation. We remain hopeful that future filmmakers will take note moving forward, and craft better, thoroughly researched and thoughtful representations of marginalized groups in cinema. 

Reset your health standards

Throughout the semester, many individuals struggle to keep up with their overall health and well-being. Keeping up with work, school, social lives, mental health and physical health takes a lot of effort. While it is easy to let some of these things slip through the cracks, we feel it can be important to be intentional about your health during times like spring break. 

Having a week without the time constraint of classes, homework or grading can free up time to focus on health. For many individuals, meal preparation and planning can be a very helpful way to eat healthily when you may not have the time to prepare fresh food. You could spend the break coming up with recipes and preparing a supply of meals to stock in your freezer or fridge. This can make it easier for you to quickly grab healthy alternatives to on-campus dining or fast food. 

Spring break can also be a good time to readjust your sleep schedule. Many college students struggle with a lack of sleep due to early classes or late night study sessions. If your schedule has lightened up during spring break, going to bed early or sleeping in later than normal can help improve overall health before getting back into the grind.

Stay on track for success

If you’re not too burnt out going into break, another way to spend your time is preparing to return to school. While we all look forward to spring break as our primary pause in the winter semester, it’s merely one week long. Rather than completely turning off your academic brain, we recommend tuning into upcoming deadlines and projects in your courses. Whether you’re graduating, finishing your first semester or somewhere in between, finding ways to keep on top of classwork is necessary to succeed as a college student. Spring break is a great time to reorganize how you track assignments, test out new study methods or even design a new schedule that balances studying with self-care and social breaks. 

Additionally, especially for those in their final years at GVSU, scouting and applying for internships or jobs could be a future-forward way to spend an afternoon or two. The GVSU Career Center has a dedicated site for those who don’t know where to start, and they’re always happy to help students along in their professional journey. 

Enjoy new (or classic) entertainment

One week away from school could mean one week to catch up on new movies, shows and albums that have come out lately. With new albums from The Weeknd, Tate McRae, The Lumineers and more, hours that would’ve been spent in classes can be spent listening to new tracks (or old favorites) from artists you love. If you’re lucky, you could even attend a concert over break.

Metacritic displays a lengthy list of recent album releases, from PARTYNEXTDOOR to The Wombats. As far as movie fanatics go, we’re sure you’ve heard of the “Captain America: Brave New World” release; however, Fandango has compiled a catalog of other new films for those who are looking for another genre. For horror fans, new episodes of the thriller television show “Yellowjackets’” dropped on Valentine’s Day. Spring break also serves as the perfect time to dig into a new book, podcast or video game– either with friends or alone!

For any students staying in the Allendale and Grand Rapids area, check out the Experience Grand Rapids website for events happening downtown and around the city!

Have a good time, but be responsible

As the saying goes, “Don’t add to the population. Don’t subtract from the population. Stay out of the hospital, the newspaper and jail. If you do end up in jail, establish dominance quickly.”

Enjoy your spring break, Lakers!

With tracks like “euphoria” and “Not Like Us” featured in the performance, many viewers were amused by the blatant shots at Drake. Part of a crowd favorite moment, memes are now circulating of Lamar’s grin at the camera during the phrase “Hey Drake.” William’s dancing cameo also fed further into this plot, as both she and SZA had been romantically involved with Drake years before the Lamar-Drake beef came to a boiling point. Knowing the background of this performance, we see Lamar’s halftime show as a cultural phenomenon due to the social context that amplified the performance. 

However, for those paying attention, the shots at Drake were only one aspect of the show; Lamar had something much deeper to say with his performance. 

Jackson, who served as a narrator through the performance, was decked out in a patriotic suit, and personified Uncle Sam. As the Root reported, “Uncle Sam was supposed to represent the ‘sanitized’ America. The America that makes most of the Super Bowl viewers comfortable.”

The show was filled with symbolism, with dancers on the main stage dressed head-to-toe in red, white and blue. During the opening notes of Lamar’s 2017 hit “HUMBLE,” the dancers arranged to form an American flag. The choreography continued, and the flag formation split down the middle, which we see as symbolizing the division within our current political system.

However, the evident cultural nods don’t end there. Lamar opened his show with a legendary monologue, stating, “The revolution about to be televised, you picked the right time but the wrong guy.” A quick music break followed before he said, “forty acres and a mule, this is bigger than the music.” The first reference brings viewers back to “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” a 1970 spoken-word protest poem by Gil Scott-Heron that declares individuals must participate in the revolution rather than observe. “Forty acres and a mule” refers to a broken promise made to formerly enslaved people. The rescinded agreement attempted to help formerly enslaved people begin farms as a form of reparations. Without a doubt, we feel these impactful cues to historical African American and social justice movements define Lamar’s set as not just entertainment, but art. We feel this is especially the case considering President Donald Trump, the first and only sitting president to have attended the Super Bowl, was present at the performance.

The politically charged performance unsurprisingly garnered widespread criticism from right-wing pundits including Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Benny Johnson, just to name a few. On X , Walsh stated, “Bizarre decision by the NFL to have some guy come out and lethargically mumble a bunch of songs that 90 percent of the NFL audience has never heard.” This was just before he reposted another commentator’s take, which called the performance a “DEI halftime show.” Johnson had a much more inflammatory take on the show, posting, “Hey NFL, Trump won. We no longer let talentless mumbling pagan satanic cultists do halftime shows and pretend people like it.” 

While not enjoying the setlist or being unable to make out Lamar’s vocals seem like reasonable criticism, we feel labeling the performance a “DEI halftime show” or calling Lamar a “pagan satanic cultist” is clearly rooted in something far more sinister than a difference of musical opinion– racism. We find it interesting that negative comments seem to be almost exclusively coming from conservatives, and believe that it is important to directly address these racist remarks. 

Walsh’s statement about the NFL’s decision to choose Lamar is not only racially charged, but it’s completely baseless and incorrect. Lamar’s “Not Like Us” spent two weeks at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart this past year. In fact, all but one of the songs performed in Lamar’s halftime show have reached the top 10. With these statistics in mind, it is much more likely that 90% of the NFL’s audience has definitely heard at least one of Lamar’s songs. 

Johnson referring to Lamar as a “pagan satanic cultist” is also a tired and played-out talking point that conservatives have lobbied against artists they do not like. Self-proclaimed “alpha male” conservative Nick Adams responded to Rihanna’s 2023 Super Bowl Halftime Show by saying, “Something about Rihanna’s performance feels satanic.” We think this sentiment has been overused by the right-wing to attack artists who don’t align with their values.

Despite these absurd critiques, Lamar’s halftime show was everything it needed to be. It was entertaining, culturally relevant and highlighted his discography, while also delivering a deeper message about racism in the United States. Lamar’s performance was fantastic, and the outcry from conservatives across the Country, combined with his fans’ praise, cements the legacy of this iconic performance.

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.