Editorial: Democracy Day and Genuine Discourse

This past Wednesday, Amherst commemorated Democracy Day with a Civic Engagement Fair at Keefe Campus Center, a campus dialogue session at Converse Hall, and a Center for Humanistic Inquiry Salon featuring faculty panelists. The day unfolded against a backdrop of political and civil unrest in the United States, most recently accentuated by the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Democracy Day fell on Constitution Day, a holiday that celebrates the signing of the United States Constitution and the naturalization of U.S. citizens. Such moments compel us to contemplate democracy’s inherent fragility and the urgency of its renewal. Democracy Day — originally a student-initiated effort to recommit the campus to democratic principles — ultimately proved inadequate. Instead, it felt superficial, diffused, and disconnected from the pressing political milieu. 

Despite good intentions, Democracy Day seemed more surface-level than substantive. The programming was cursory, scheduled on a Wednesday when most students had other engagements, and it leaned too heavily on gestures of shallow patriotism — like a cupcake decorating event in Val — rather than opportunities for genuine dialogue. For many, it felt performative, even somewhat defeated: were we genuinely recommitting to democratic principles or merely staging a ritualistic pageantry? In the end, the day revealed the college's inability to craft a clear, emotionally resonant vision of democracy. What we need instead is a deeper recommitment to democracy on our own terms — through local journalism, genuine student engagement, and the kinds of spontaneous, sometimes uncomfortable, conversations that invigorate democratic practice. 

This lack of resonance points to a deeper contradiction at Amherst. The college often presents itself as a campus devoted to critical thinking and dialogue — a place where liberal arts education naturally fosters democratic habits of mind. In theory, we should be modeling a kind of utopian "free press” — a micro-democracy of ideas shaped by open debate and curiosity. Yet the reality is decidedly paradoxical. Our student body is hyper-homogeneous and siloed, with few genuine spaces for exchange. The only forum not mediated by the college is Fizz, and it routinely devolves into toxicity rather than dialogue. 

The administration has a delicate balance to strike: to support without becoming overcontrolling, and to create platforms that empower students rather than absorbing their momentum. Too often, students rely on the administration to manufacture spaces for engagement, but the moment it intervenes, though well-intentioned, student initiatives lose their sense of urgency. By interacting in these pre-existing and carefully curated spaces, students cease to learn how to develop their own perspectives and create their own unique space for dialogue.  

Democracy Day illustrates this perfectly: What began as a student-driven effort was ultimately reshaped by bureaucracy into a diluted program that aimed to appease all yet inspired none. Casual and fun “patriotic” events take away attention from more pressing and uncomfortable issues, and risk echoing the current presidential administration’s attempts to erase the painful complexities of American history. Such activities, when they take place in the heart of student campus life, also make the serious panels and discussions of the program seem like an afterthought, which themselves risk disincentivizing student-led initiatives. Yet, with attacks intensifying on higher education, we understand that the administration is limited to the political rhetoric it pushes. The question that remains is whether we should continue waiting for the administration to facilitate democracy, or whether it’s time to claim that task.

The tension between performance and substance is not unique to the Amherst administration; it reflects a broader crisis in American media. Across the nation, major news outlets face mounting threats, from political coercion to corporate influence, and the result is an industry that often prioritizes spectacle over truth, attractive buzzwords over structural change. Consider, for instance, the brief removal of Jimmy Kimmel from the air, not because he made fun of political violence, but because he pointed out how it was being exploited for political purposes. In such an environment, sensationalism frequently eclipses careful reporting, and episodes like the shooting of Charlie Kirk become fodder for polarization and theatrics rather than opportunities for sober reflection.

Student democratic engagement at the college often suffers from fragmentation. While students are passionate about many causes, their energy is dispersed, and there is no unified vision for collective action. Too frequently, activism takes the form of reposting political outrage on Instagram stories rather than tangible efforts like protesting, contacting representatives, or participating in organized initiatives. 

The missed opportunity is clear: Both the Charlie Kirk shooting and Democracy Day highlighted the urgent need for dialogue, yet students largely remained siloed or disengaged. Fixating on a particular event or perspective, passively consuming content, or engaging in one-sided dialogue, prevents individuals from understanding the complex factors involved in democratic erosion, further contributing to polarization without meaningful change. But a few might ask: to what extent does every student need to be an activist? Some cannot act openly, either due to personal constraints or because they could risk losing their visa. But meaningful democratic practices still remain accessible — small, quotidian actions through which one can engage, deliberate, and participate in the life of democracy.

The Editorial Board recognizes that small-scale, independent newspapers, both on and off-campus, play an outsized role in sustaining democratic life. At Amherst, The Student exists in relative isolation, but that distance is also a strength: It shields us from the distortions of mass media while allowing our coverage to exert a tangible influence on campus discourse. Democracy is not a vague concept only existing in the hands of powerful officials — it exists in how we think, interact, and write. Whether it’s just debating with classmates and friends, volunteering, or writing a short essay, these active engagements encourage individuals to not only interact with others but also reflect on and strengthen the validity of their own ideas. This cycle of continuing to refine one’s beliefs through conversations with others seemed to be what Democracy Day intended. But these conversations must come organically to hold their value.

Democracy Day was an opportunity to take attacks on democracy in this country seriously. Instead, it was reduced to a shallow celebration of bland patriotism in a neatly packaged fair. If America’s history of protesting has taught us anything, it’s that we, as students in the 21st century, have a responsibility to create our own spaces for dialogue instead of simply consuming already curated ones. We must actively engage with perspectives that challenge us rather than isolating in echo chambers. Amherst’s liberal arts education should be a training ground for democratic reasoning, not just abstract intellectual exercises. But we can encourage more optimistic perspectives with student-led initiatives that test what shared power looks like, whether through organizations like the Amherst Political Union, Amherst Students for Democracy, AC Democrats, AC Conservatives, Young Democratic Socialists, the Environmental Justice Alliance, the Reproductive Justice Alliance, or new coalitions yet to be imagined. 

A true recommitment to democracy on campus will require both student initiative and institutional structures that nurture rather than stifle engagement on campus. Without that dual investment, Democracy Day risks becoming another hollow ritual; with it, Amherst could model the kind of democratic renewal the country so desperately needs.

Unsigned editorials represent the views of the majority of the Editorial Board (assenting: 13; dissenting: 0; abstaining: 0)