Since president Donald Trump returned to office in January, universities across the United States have received much of his ire. The behavior and policies in Washington, D.C., have direct consequences for college students — now more than ever — and we deserve to learn about them.

Under the Trump administration, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have threatened students with deportation, international student visas have been rejected and the Department of Education and nationwide diversity, equity and inclusion offices have been dismantled. Federal research grants, including at the University of Maryland, and financial aid programs face significant cuts. Transgender student athletes have been barred from women’s sports. The administration also has used its financial power in an attempt to influence university policies, including demands to restrict student protests. For many students, recent political developments are deeply personal and sometimes life altering.

Despite these unprecedented events occurring in our country, I’ve noticed many classrooms at this university seem to adhere to a “business-as-usual” approach and avoid discussions regarding current events for fear of ostracization. Professors likely want to prevent accusations of being too biased or political and imposing their beliefs on students. These anxieties have merit — several professors at the university have already made Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA “Professor Watchlist”, primarily for their inclusion of LGBTQ+, feminist and anti-racist course material. In today’s political climate, attracting negative attention from conservatives can pose a real danger to university faculty.

But professors don’t have to preach ideology in order to foster inquiry. And promoting science and basic civil liberties isn’t political — or at least, it shouldn’t be. Academic settings are designed to impart lessons that surpass dominant and often misleading narratives. When U.S. universities silence open discussions, they are unintentionally mirroring the censorship they are supposed to be actively resisting.

Higher education institutions have a responsibility to instill students with more than historical facts and abstract concepts. The ability to think critically about the past and present is diminishing in an era where information is primarily shared superficially via social media. Academic environments that encourage nuanced reflection are essential. Even if students disagree with the ideas presented by the majority of the class, facilitating respectful dialogue allows everyone to learn how to meaningfully defend their opinion and contemplate what exactly they are defending.

Furthermore, students must be equipped for the world as it is right now, not the one presented in a curated curriculum designed years ago. Discussing recent developments is an invaluable opportunity to connect students with the world they will pursue careers in, especially in classes that cover relevant topics, like political science, sociology, public policy, international relations, economics and cultural and gender studies. An institution that produces students with strong academics is meaningless without the ability to successfully apply what they have learned in matters that hold current significance.

In law classes, case studies on current immigration cases or Supreme Court decisions allow students to deeply consider the individuals and subjects they will work with. In politics and international relations classes, discussions and analyses about recent policies, programs and conflicts are crucial in applying course material to future work. In pre-med and public health classes, dialogue and curriculum covering issues of medical autonomy, like reproductive rights and euthanasia and anti-vax sentiments would introduce students to the scrutiny they will likely face for the entirety of their career.

Moreover, it is important for every student to have a comprehensive understanding of current events — especially when they may be directly impacted. Open dialogue about how political affairs are affecting students and the people they know can promote informed and empathetic voting decisions.

Professors at this university have a unique opportunity to prepare students for the challenges they will face in an increasingly complicated world by fostering open dialogue on current events. Avoiding these conversations only perpetuates a disconnect between academia and the realities students will confront beyond the classroom.

Anushka Shah is a junior government and politics major with a concentration in international relations. She can be reached at fromanushkashah@gmail.com.

Amid widespread political pressure on higher education institutions in the United States, the University of Maryland has set a dangerous precedent in relinquishing part of its independence.

In August, the university joined numerous institutions across the country in rebranding its Office of Diversity and Inclusion to the Office of Belonging & Community.

Nationwide efforts dedicated to encouraging diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have been integral villains in the Trump administration’s narrative since the president’s first term. In his second, the war on such policies has only escalated, with Trump pinning everything from the tragic Washington, D.C., plane crash in January to federal agency inefficiencies on diversity initiatives.

Earlier this year, American colleges and universities were accused of abusing their authority by “imposing discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion” standards, with Trump signing executive orders that directed them to halt participation in such practices and disclose admissions data to the federal government. Unfortunately, this university was one of many to bend. If we want to retain further integrity as an institution, we cannot continue to do so in response to iniquitous political agendas.

The administration threatened colleges and universities that failed to comply with federal funding freezes or cuts, and has also threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of private institutions.

Several state lawmakers have enacted policy rollbacks or bans, which has forced public universities like the University of Michigan and the entire University of North Carolina system to fully dissolve their diversity, equity and inclusion offices and programs. But it is important to note that this university did have a choice, with Maryland leaders affirming their commitment to preserving diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Other public universities in Maryland, including the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, Towson University, the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and nearby Bowie State University, have all maintained such programs and initiatives, at least according to their websites.

And if the University of Maryland continues to concede to the government, its students and faculty are at severe risk of losing comparable rights.

Columbia University was stripped of $400 million in federal funding after Trump alleged a series of pro-Palestine protests indicated the university’s antisemitism. The Trump administration also targeted Harvard University, blocking $2.2 billion in federal funding and $60 million in federal contracts and attempting to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend the university.

Harvard has refused to comply with the majority of Trump’s demands about giving power over the university to the government, as well as restricting minority and international enrollment. And while Harvard sued the administration in retaliation, it too has made plenty of concessions, removing its women’s and LGBTQ+ student centers, ending its undergraduate minority recruitment program, and, like this university, quietly adjusting its terminology away from diversity, equity and inclusion.

For now, the change at the University of Maryland is largely symbolic. But symbols exist for a reason. The rebrand is understandable given the current political climate and allows for the systems and procedures that defined the diversity, equity and inclusion office to remain in place. But it is deeply concerning, as it appears to validate the Trump administration’s outlandish claims and hints at a willingness to comply with administration demands on the initiatives.

This would put the university’s commitment to an inclusive campus and overall reputation as an academically and socially progressive, respected, sovereign and credible institution at stake. And if we look to universities like Columbia and Harvard as examples, it seems as though more allowances are in store for this university under its current trajectory. I’m sympathetic to the school’s reliance on federal funding, but far more is at risk if it continues to yield.

Anushka Shah is a junior government and politics major with a concentration in international relations. She can be reached at fromanushkashah@gmail.com.

On April 17, the Supreme Court announced it would review President Donald Trump’s pitch to end universal birthright citizenship in the United States. Trump signed an executive order that called for such a ban on his first day in office, challenging an unequivocal precedent that has survived the racist and xenophobic 19th and 20th centuries. 

The last time birthright citizenship was contested — and ultimately upheld — was in 1898. Of all the questionable and malicious actions Trump’s administration has taken since Jan. 20, this could perhaps be the most anti-American. 

Birthright has defined U.S. citizenship for more than a century, and it is in everyone’s best interest to protect it. 

The Trump administration’s justification for abolishing birthright citizenship is to discourage birth tourism and illegal immigration. Trump claimed in January that the U.S. was “the only country in the world that does this,” which is false. As of 2025, more than 30 countries, including Canada and Mexico, offer unconditional birthright citizenship. Most countries that follow this policy are located in the Western Hemisphere, historically known as the “New World.” There is a reason for that. 

Everyone in the United States, with the exception of the first Americans and Indigenous people, are immigrants or their descendants. The first English colonizers came to North America in the 17th century for better opportunities and religious freedom. Famine, religious persecution, political and economic unrest and other hardships drove European immigration into the early 20th century. Since 1965, about 72 million people have immigrated to the U.S. in search of opportunity and safety, with the majority coming from Latin America and Asia. The population of the country reflects the generational integration of each wave of immigrants. 

Birthright citizenship has been instrumental in preventing immigrant children from becoming subclassed in their own birthplace. It allows them to, at least legally, integrate wholly into the country they were born and raised in. Despite unrelenting racism and xenophobia, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that no one can legitimately challenge the citizenship of anyone born in the U.S. 

Due to the recency of American settlement, the abolition of birthright citizenship could allow for anyone’s citizenship to be contested, either through their parents’ immigration status or their ancestors’.

Many of us can trace our ancestry back to another country — including Trump, who had a Scottish immigrant mother and German paternal grandparents. But considering Immigration and Customs Enforcement has detained and questioned the citizenship of Indigenous people after the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, it seems foreign ancestry is not what they are combating. 

Fortunately, it is unlikely Trump’s birthright citizenship order will come to fruition. Flagrantly defying the constitution is not easy, and the president does not have the authority to amend it. Amid his highly controversial proposition, Trump has been sued by 22 states and organizations like the ACLU to block the order from going into effect nationwide.

Entertaining this action would not only be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment — it would undermine America’s social fabric and identity as a nation of immigrants. 

As the daughter of Indian immigrants, if I had been born after an order to overturn birthright citizenship was recognized, I would not be a citizen, despite being born and spending my entire life in the U.S. And it’s not as if I would have become a citizen of my parents’ country either — I wasn’t born there. Abolishing birthright citizenship would leave many Americans stateless, whether it be legally, emotionally or both. 

On a more positive note, the Trump administration has offered a new way to achieve U.S. citizenship. Instead of receiving it by birth or prolonged residence and contribution, those who want it badly enough can always write out a $5 million check to the White House. So thank you, Trump, for protecting the integrity of U.S. citizenship.

Anushka Shah is a sophomore government and politics major with a concentration in international relations. She can be reached at fromanushkashah@gmail.com.

“Vote. This is an election like no other, one that surpasses policy and is rooted in democracy and morality itself.” 

“Let your voice be heard. Make a difference. Be an active and informed citizen.” 

“Contribute to the democratic process. Register online, mail in your ballot, make it to an early voting center, show up on election day.” 

In the weeks leading up to the Nov. 5, 2024 election, this is what we were told by the Kamala Harris campaign and the Democratic Party across social and general media. These tactics targeted young, college-aged voters who are less amenable to traditional campaigning procedures and favor social media related advocacy.

But did it work? Thanks to the Electoral College, each state gets votes based on the number of members of Congress it has, and Maryland has historically voted blue. Harris’ win here was essentially a foregone conclusion, which doesn’t lend itself to the importance of our participation on a national level. 

Instead, an emphasis from Democrats on local elections where University of Maryland students could actually make a difference would incite motivation for voting. 

Several student organizations advocated for voting participation, and the university took steps to make this process simple for students. An informative installation box, a FedEx dropbox to deliver mail-in ballots and an in-person voting location at Stamp Student Union made voting convenient for students living on or near campus, especially since many don’t have cars. 

Of course, absentee ballots that never came, strict state voting restrictions, schedule conflicts, long lines, and confusion regarding assigned polling locations and provisional ballots complicated the process. But these logistical issues pale in comparison to the wider explanation behind low voter turnout — for those in non-swing states, such as Maryland, what is the point? 

That’s the crux of the issue. Democracy is about having an equal and meaningful say. Engaging in it is difficult when you know you don’t. 

Perhaps the lack of young voter turnout cannot be fully attributed to apathy. Instead, it can be linked with the need for actions to produce immediate and favorable results. In 2024, youth voter turnout decreased overall, but it was strongest in swing states — the only ones where voting made a clear and significant impact in the national election. 

But the presidential race is not the only competition that matters. State representatives for the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are just as, if not more, essential in passing or restricting legislation, and thanks to checks and balances, the president’s power is limited without majorities in Congress. 

The Republican Party unfortunately controls the House and Senate, and checks and balances are increasingly becoming muddied. In 2026, the entire House of Representatives and about one-third of the Senate are supposed to be up for grabs during the midterm elections. Yes, the Trump administration will still hold the executive branch, but these elections should provide Democrats a much-needed majority that would allow them to block some of Trump’s agenda through legislation or refusal to fund. State attorneys general could also fight back against Trump’s agenda by filing lawsuits and contesting the legality of his orders. 

Moreover, elections for attorney generals, judges, governors, education board members and county council representatives can heavily influence state policies and daily life. In 2024, Marylanders codified reproductive rights to the state constitution. The College Park City Council recently held a special election for its District 3 seat on Tuesday. It is in these ballot measures that voters can contribute to a foreseeable and genuine impact regardless of whether their state is a national battleground. 

As the Trump administration starts to implement Project 2025, state leaders have become extremely important in resisting unprecedented and controversial executive actions. The elected attorneys general from 22 states sued to prevent Trump’s desire to end birthright citizenship, also known as the 14th Amendment, and they were supported by a federal court. Similar suits have been filed to block the defunding of medical and public health innovation research. 

Granted, it is not enough for the time being. The majority of the Democratic Party is facing rightful criticism for essentially being silent. Despite certain politicians such as U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (D-NY, District 14) and Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX, District 30) speaking out against the Trump administration, most have remained largely quiet. Ten House Democrats even voted in favor of censuring Rep. Al Green (D-TX District 9) for protesting potential Medicaid cuts during Trump’s State of the Union address. 

The Democratic Party lost the presidency, Congress and all that it represented, but if they wish to hold any value in the coming years, they cannot fold as soon as they fall. If they want to encourage college-aged people to vote in the future, they must continue to be vocal and direct attention down the ballot to the impending elections in which their voice truly will be heard. 

Anushka Shah is a sophomore government and politics major with a concentration in international relations. She can be reached at fromanushkashah@gmail.com.

For students who applied to college before 2020’s testing policy reinvention, it’s hard not to feel both envious of today’s increased flexibility and relief for avoiding the ensuing chaos.

Educators, researchers, parents and students for decades have argued that standardized testing, specifically in college admissions, is not an accurate measure of student potential and is often influenced by factors beyond academic knowledge.

In 2020, these arguments were thrust into national attention after more than 1,600 colleges and universities went test-optional for the 2020-21 application season due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to FairTest. In 2022, the University of Maryland announced it would remain test-optional through the spring and fall 2025 admissions cycles, but has yet to permanently commit to a testing policy.

While both avenues have the potential for positive and negative impacts, a unique, text-flexible policy achieves a fair compromise that is more representative of students’ academic potential.

Regardless of which path this university should take, we must commit to one permanently. In an increasingly competitive climate, college admissions preparation begins early, and high schoolers deserve to know which of their doings most determine their future. Until a better choice becomes available, a test-flexible policy is the most generous and equitable approach for this university.

The Harvard Educational Review found the SAT gives an unfair advantage to white students due to writing topics that cater to the demographic. This claim is supported by a 2022 analysis of College Board examination records, which reveal white test takers were more than seven times more likely than their Black peers to score between a 1400 to 1600 on the SAT, a range typically required for admission into the most selective universities.

Low-income students have also been shown to score disproportionately low compared to wealthier students. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why — higher-income families can afford better tutors, study materials and other test preparation resources than lower-income families.

And of course, taking the exams are an expense of their own. Registering for an SAT test costs $68, and even if a student is eligible for a fee waiver, they’re underused and may leave them without the opportunity to retake the test until they get their desired result.

In this context, strict testing requirements do not align with this university’s commitment to reduce financial barriers and ensure attendance is affordable to all state residents. The dissolution of required standardized testing is the natural path to achieving college admissions equity.

But separate research conducted by MIT and Dartmouth found that test-optional policies harm low-income students who rely on standardized testing to demonstrate their academic promise when competing against wealthier students who have access to advanced coursework and extracurricular activities.

These conflicting claims about standardized testing beg the enduring question: what is the fairest way to assess student potential?

This university should stray from both extremes and implement a policy that requires testing yet offers more freedom and versatility to students.

Earlier this year, Yale University joined its contemporaries in reinstating its standardized testing requirements, adopting a “test-flexible” policy that allows prospective students to choose from one of four standardized testing options, allowing them to submit the Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exam scores in place of SAT and ACT results.

Because AP and IB exams are centered on specific subjects, they are typically more well-rounded representations of student performance than a single SAT or ACT exam and are more akin to assessing GPA. They’re also homogeneous and do not face the inflation and variance obstacles that traditional grades do.

AP and IB scores will also allow students to showcase their advanced abilities in subjects beyond math and reading. At a diverse, STEM-focused institution like this university, student potential in computer, natural, and social sciences, foreign language and culture and the arts deserves to be considered.

A test-flexible policy achieves a reasonable compromise — one that enables this university to use standardized yet more diversified data when making admissions decisions.

Anushka Shah is a sophomore government and politics major with a concentration in international relations. She can be reached at fromanushkashah@gmail.com.