Panel Discusses Effects of Trump Presidency on Amherst Students

On Feb. 25, five professors from departments across campus gathered in a crowded Cole Assembly Room for the first of two talks in a series titled, “What Democracy’s Demise Would Mean for You.”

The conversation centered on how the actions of President Donald Trump’s administration, and their subsequent effects on democracy, will impact the lives of Amherst students while in college and after graduation. The speakers focused on the future of the job market, everyday life choices, and even individual freedoms.

The professors who spoke at the event came from a wide range of backgrounds and departments at the college. The panelists included: William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science Austin Sarat, Professor of American Studies and Black Studies Solsiree Del Moral; Assistant Professor of Geology Nicholas Holschuh; Chair of Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought (LJST) Adam Sitze; and Leah Schmalzbauer, interim associate provost and associate dean of the faculty, and professor of American studies and sociology.

Each professor gave a brief opening talk at the event, offering their perspective on the topic of democracy. Each shared a sentiment of anxiety and emphasized the gravity of the current moment in American history. There was a controlling negative sentiment in the discussion by the professors, as they warned students that it may be difficult for them to navigate the job market or plans for graduate school. While this negative sentiment offered a chilling look at the future of academia and jobs, there was an emphasis on the solution of community alliance and coalition as a path forward.

Sitze began by speaking about the Trump administration’s utilization of misinformation. He expressed that when Americans become complacent, the government can begin to create a monopoly over information — even more dangerous than mere misinformation — where the American public begins to question the facts of various situations, such as who started the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Holschuh spoke about the new administration’s impact on research and job opportunities within the realm of science, in particular climate science. He emphasized that since the current administration took office, there have been changes to the longstanding practices of our knowledge production system, as this data collection is the source of many everyday public benefits like the weather app, due to it being supplied to private companies who run the apps. Holschuh also expressed concern over the current mass layoffs from the NIH and NSF, and cuts to funding that take away people’s job safety and jeopardize research’s impact as a public good. The professor even shared personal anecdotes of his colleagues in the scientific community, such as an individual who worked for the Polar Program in Antarctica of the National Science Foundation, who was recently fired and had to return to the United States.

Schmalzbauer discussed the fear caused not only by the demise of democracy but also by the impacts it has on community breakdown. She referred particularly to the changes in how members of a community talk and interact with each other, ultimately leading to diminished trust, which she said preceded the Trump administration. Schmalzbauer expressed worry about the further impact of recent executive orders on this breakdown, as the orders pit people against each other, and single out certain individuals based on identity and social status. She also expressed how she has seen the fear of speaking out on the Amherst campus grow, due in part to social media platforms such as Fizz, which have become increasingly popular. Schmalzbauer encouraged students to avoid Fizz in the hopes of working towards a more democratic campus.

Del Moral spoke about thinking carefully about the terms we use in political discourse — such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) — and how in order to understand these terms, we must look to history. For example, she explained that the framework of “DEI vs. merit,” which she believes is a false dichotomy, encourages a view of people of color as inherently incompetent. This debate has occurred in America for over 50 years, due to the discussion of the incompetence of people of color, and in particular Black people, due to affirmative action. Del Moral also expressed concern over the word “criminal” being used to explain immigrants and encouraged having more grace with each other when discussing hot-button issues.

Finally, Sarat warned the audience about how the current declarations of the constitutional catastrophe that is currently taking place in America are generally being ignored by its constituents. He felt that there is a disenchantment, especially from the younger generation, regarding the Constitution itself and argued that the way forward from the current catastrophe requires speaking out, seeking structural reform, and practicing democratic thinking.

After the Q&A, the presidents of Amherst Students for Democracy (ASFD) asked students to sign their pledge, which asks students to commit to working for an organization that performs work that improves democracy either domestically or internationally, during their time at Amherst.

The club’s presidents, Claire Beougher ’26, Isabella DePreist-Sullivan ’27, and Hedley Lawrence-Apfelbaum ’26 spoke on behalf of ASFD leadership, and expressed excitement regarding the event’s attendance.  “The attendees were respectful and had asked really thought-provoking questions,” they said.

They said that they appreciated that attendees of the event were able to “hear from professors in a wide range of departments, all who shared something different that resonated with them as people, or with their expertise,” as their responses highlighted the “impacts of the election for students in a variety of fields and demographics.”

The students emphasized their excitement regarding the fact that the majority of students attending the event took their pledge, attributing the level of engagement to situating their pledge around what professors had said during the event.

Julia Teller ’28 thought that the event was “really well done,” and that it was interesting to hear “a scientific perspective as well as a legal perspective.”
Teller, however, also found the sentiment shared in the event as “depressing.” She expressed doubt that there would be as many people at the second iteration of the event.

“It’s not super fun to sit for three hours and listen to talk of how the world is ending,” she said.

Odessa Ikels ’28 explained that she enjoyed all of the “different takes,” especially that of Holschuh, as she was originally confused about what they were going to talk about, due to them being from a STEM background rather than a legal or historical background, but that it ended up being “one of the most interesting perspectives, as [she] hadn’t considered the funding aspect of the scientific community.”

Ikels explained that she signed the pledge from ASFD, as it was a “good, simple pledge.” She wondered what work could be done from Amherst, MA, but was open to learning more about available opportunities from ASFD.

Thomas Ye ’25 expressed that he was pleased about how many students were in attendance. He expressed that it was a “good reaffirmation that a lot of people care about democracy and the events that are happening right now.”

Ye noticed that America may be “oversaturating ourselves with this ‘America is ending’ messaging,” which is perhaps the reason that the American people are “becoming more and more apathetic to it.” He believes that this may lead people to “start to not believe us the fifth time around, even when it’s the most dangerous.”