Politics is a prominent force that divides the nation and brings together those with similar views. When election year rolls around, the contentious topic sweeps every conversation, and many different opinions are argued and disputed. Yet, one voice is not truly being heard quite as loudly as the others—college students.
From the rising cost of tuition to debates over free speech on campus, many college students find themselves burdened by the heavy decision of voting. Students are becoming more aware of politics’ direct impact on their daily lives, yet the outreach from political candidates towards college students and their struggles seems to be a debatable conversation in many lecture halls.
“It’s a scary thought, thinking we are the next generation to begin voting,” said a *Jones College Freshman student. “Without the correct information I am at a loss on what to do with such a big decision at stake.”
With the most recent election having resulted in an overturn of political parties, a plethora of students are concerned with how stable their future in higher education will be. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, also known as CIRCLE, an estimation of 42% of voters between ages 18 – 29 cast ballots for the 2024 presidential election, which included 50 million youth voters who were able to register and an additional 8 million new youth voters who had turned 18 since the midterm election of 2022. While the turnout of these voters had slightly decreased from 2020, this presidential election saw a far closer race between each presidential candidate and the percentage of youth voters for each political party.
Although there was a decrease in youth voters, the AP VoteCast Survey revealed a shift in voting since the 2020 election from college-aged students beginning to favor the Republican Party. While 52% of the youth voted for Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris, presidential candidate Donald Trump of the Republican Party received 46%, which was an increase from his former campaign in 2020, where he only received 36% of the votes.
With the re-election of Trump, differing opinions surrounding the topic of how his new policies will have of an effect on education have arisen on college campuses. With turbulent views crossing paths, it can only make the already stressful lives of college students even more taxing.
“I would say that I am extremely worried about these next four years,” said a Jones College Freshman. “I have only started my college education, and as a student, constantly hearing about the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement alongside a change in curricula has me worried about what I am going to learn or more so what I am not going to learn about.”
While some students are concerned about President Donald Trump’s current term in office, others are excited about the change and the potential that could arise under his presidency.
“Honestly, I would say the result of this election has increased my hopes for a better education,” said a Jones College Sophomore. “With President Trump in office, the economic side of college life will be bettered. From decreased prices for groceries to gas, allowing me to commute to and from school to the eventual time when I will enter the housing market after my education, hopefully I will be able to purchase my first house for an affordable price rather than being burdened by my student loans.”
CIRCLE’s election results and analysis demonstrated that students with different priorities voted for opposite political parties. Students more concerned with the economy, immigration and crime voted in favor of Trump with 40% while Harris saw a majority in voting for those who prioritised views on racism and abortion.
Another major topic comes from a shift in the Department of Education. On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.”
The primary objectives of this executive order are removing “gender ideology” and “discriminatory equity ideology” from K-12 classrooms and providing students with a “patriotic education.” The president defined “gender ideology” as the idea that “there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.” “Discriminatory equity ideology” can be described as “an ideology that treats individuals as members of preferred or disfavored groups, rather than as individuals, and minimizes agency, merit and capability in favor of immoral generalizations.”
This order encapsulates groups of people including “the assumptions or claims regarding race, color, sex or national origin to be morally superior,” as explained by Parker Poe Attorneys and Counselors at Law, as well as the idea that the “United States is fundamentally racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory.”
President Trump provided further examples and behaviors that can be acted upon legally. These included using a person’s preferred name and pronouns, using the term “nonbinary” to refer to a minor, permitting the use of facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms and allowing the participation in athletic events or extracurricular activities that aligns with their gender identity.
This order aims to eliminate “discriminatory equity ideology” through forms of reducing and abstaining from granting federal funding to schools and districts that are found to be endorsing this form of behavior. Due to this new rule, education systems are forbidden to designate scholarship opportunities to a singular race; instead, the race of applicants is being dismissed. While many people call this equality and fairness in education, others are arguing that taking aid away from minority races causes a diminished population diversity.
“There is an indisputable benefit to having a diverse population of perspectives and experiences in an academic environment,” said Jones American Government instructor Haley Patterson. “This rule diminishes that variety, and the detriment will be felt not only by students and staff on school campuses but also by the many people who will lose access to attending or working at schools due to this change.”
Another topic that is finding its way onto the debate floors of college classrooms is the idea of a filtered curriculum. Executive Order 14190 is the catalyst for this argument. Although not directly affecting the college students of the present, this executive order refers to future college students and many argue that college professors will be sincerely affected by this censorship. The Executive Order states that every schooling curriculum shall impart a patriotic admiration for the nation and the values that it stands for.
With the 250th birthday of America upcoming, the federal grant programs National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts have revised their application guidelines for applications in order to comply with the administration’s new policy goals with a “patriotic education.” By revising their guidelines, this cancelled smaller programs that focused on serving underprivileged communities as well as categories for works depicted in climate change, diversity and immigration.
This means that federal funding will only be received by projects that reflect administration’s Executive Order 14190 and present an education of “American history focused on the concept that commitment to America’s aspirations is beneficial and justified,” as said by Trump. As well as “The concept that celebration of America’s greatness and history is proper.”
While many appreciate the effort placed upon instilling a sense of patriotism in the youth and more specifically K-12, there is a huge divide on this topic.
“The censorship begins behind the scenes,” said Patterson. “ Arts and education have never thrived in a limiting environment.”
The 2024 presidential election has caused a major stir in higher education, affecting a multitude of people who are connected to colleges, as well as students themselves. With a split among the youth, the next four years may prove to be challenging and possibly even more confusing for college students as they rack their minds around comprehending all of the new changes that are occurring while compiling their own informed opinions about presidential campaigns.
“It is hard to stay well informed about all the changes,” said a Jones College Freshman. “There is no middle ground and that makes it confusing to navigate. If you go to two different sources, you will get two different outcomes, and that causes misleading information.”
*Note: Due to the nature of this article and the current political climate, the identity of Jones College students commenting have been kept anonymous.
by Boo Mills
