Photo by Kyle Head via Uplash.

In the landscape of education, all schools have been facing tough decisions when budget cuts arise and, all too often, the Arts are the first programs to be trimmed or eliminated. However, art plays an essential role in the development of students and its removal has long-lasting negative effects. Art is not merely an extracurricular activity but a fundamental aspect of a well-rounded education that fosters creativity, emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

Graph illustrating the benefits of arts integration in education, sourced from Sarah Grace Griswold’s research on arts in the classroom.

Creativity and Innovation

The arts provide students with a unique opportunity to explore new ways of thinking. Whether through painting, music, drama, or dance, art encourages students to express themselves beyond the limitations of traditional subjects like math or science. This creative exploration can lead to innovations and breakthroughs in other fields.  

By fostering creativity, art also prepares students for the future workforce. In a rapidly changing world driven by technology, employers seek individuals who can think critically and solve problems creatively. Art classes provide students with these essential skills, enabling them to navigate complex challenges both in their careers and in life.

Emotional and Social Development

Art education is integral to students’ emotional and social development. It allows them to express feelings that they may not yet have the vocabulary to articulate, providing an outlet for emotions that can be difficult to process otherwise. This emotional expression is especially crucial during adolescence when students are dealing with significant challenges in their lives.

Furthermore, the collaborative nature of many art forms teaches students valuable social skills. Whether working on a group project in theater or performing in a choir, students learn the importance of teamwork, communication, and mutual respect. These experiences can foster empathy and a sense of community. 

Enhancing Academic Performance

Contrary to the misconception that the arts are unrelated to academic success, numerous studies have shown that participation in art programs enhances students’ performance in other subjects. For example, learning music has been linked to improved math and reading skills due to the discipline and attention to detail required. Similarly, visual arts can improve spatial reasoning, while drama and theater promote language development and public speaking abilities.

Art encourages critical thinking and problem-solving in ways that complement traditional academic subjects. Students who engage with art are more likely to approach problems from multiple perspectives, a skill that benefits them in subjects ranging from literature to science.

Preserving Cultural Identity and Inclusivity

Art plays a vital role in preserving and celebrating cultural identity. In a diverse society, art education allows students to explore and understand various cultures, fostering a more inclusive and empathetic worldview. This is particularly important in an increasingly globalized world, where understanding and appreciating cultural differences are essential for peaceful coexistence.

By cutting art programs, schools risk losing this rich opportunity to promote cultural awareness and inclusivity. Art can serve as a bridge between students of different backgrounds, helping them connect through shared experiences of creativity and self-expression.

Conclusion: Protecting the Arts in Education

While financial constraints may tempt schools to cut art programs, the benefits of arts education far outweigh the costs. The arts foster creativity, emotional intelligence, social skills and academic success, all while promoting cultural understanding. Removing art from the curriculum not only deprives students of these crucial opportunities but also limits their potential to become well-rounded, innovative and empathetic individuals. Art is not a luxury; it is an essential element of a complete education and it must be protected.

Earlier this month, the two leading candidates in the 2024 United States Presidential Election faced off on the debate stage for the first, and likely only time. The event, hosted on ABC,  lasted 1 hour, 45 minutes and was watched by over 67 million viewers across major TV networks according to Nielsen TV ratings. Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump debated over the economy, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare and more, while also attempting to use their time in the spotlight to display their visions for the future of America, visions that will shape the world into which we as students will enter.

This article is a brief summary of the debate’s major themes and moments, and of the effects the debate has had on polling data and on broader culture in the ensuing few weeks. A debate transcript is available from ABC News and all debate quotes used here will follow the ABC transcript.

The Talking Points

Former President Donald Trump’s main talking point throughout the debate was immigration, specifically his claim that Democrats’ weak border policy had let waves of criminals into the country to wreak havoc. These claims often soared into the extreme (such as claiming that Haitian immigrants were eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, which the Springfield Police Department quickly denied), but in total painted a dreary picture of an America overrun by criminals as a result of inaction on the part of the Biden/Harris administration. When pressed on his own policy positions, Trump rarely explained his policies in detail. When questioned about Obamacare, he railed against it as a disaster while claiming he had “concepts of a plan” for replacing it. His explanation of how he would create the “greatest economy in the history of the country” was similarly nonexistent. 

Vice President Harris had a broader suite of major points, and she focused more on how to change the future than on the challenges of the present. She put particular emphasis on her proposed economic policies, intended to create what she termed an “opportunity economy.” Her proposal included providing tax rebates to small businesses, increasing the supply of housing, and working on cost caps for medication and other necessary consumer goods. Where Trump mostly attacked the Biden/Harris administration’s record, Harris turned to the past where needed to deflect those attacks, including her retort that she and Biden had spent the last four years “clean[ing] up Donald Trump’s mess.”

The Barbs

Harris’ main line of attack on Trump throughout the debate was to tell the audience that they were going to hear an endless barrage of lies from Trump, a point she returned to repeatedly when attacking several of Trump’s more outlandish claims. Her jabs highlighted Trump’s claim that Haitians were eating cats in Springfield and his assertions that blue states allow post-birth abortion, particularly when the moderators themselves corrected Trump. Trump’s attacks against Harris were more varied, but one common thread was claiming that Harris’ lines either were “incorrect statements” (as he said in reply to her calling his plan a national sales tax) or that her points had been given to her in advance. His attacks, however, often fell flat, especially against Harris’ requests that the audience research Trump’s platform themselves.

Another zone of conflict that wasn’t recorded in the transcript but dominated the live broadcast was their body language and use of space, particularly when listening to their opponent. Harris dominated this field from the very start of the debate, marching directly to Trump’s side of the stage and intercepting him before he could get to his podium for a pre-debate handshake. From then on, Trump appeared nervous, and he almost never looked in Harris’ direction for the rest of the debate, even when directly speaking about or to her.

Harris, on the other hand, took every opportunity she could to exploit the cameras. Every time Trump spoke, Harris spent the time looking incredulously towards his side of the room, and several of her expressions have since become memes. Her early assertions about Trump’s lying had primed the audience to expect lies; her facial expressions ensured viewers would both pay attention to those lies and react with the appropriate bafflement.

Harris’ focus on Trump’s lying did not stop some of her phrasing from falling under scrutiny for stretching the truth. In particular, NPR notes her claim about unemployment rates under Trump and about the lack of American troops in active war zones as being misleading. Harris’ statement that “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty… in any war zone around the world” is technically true, but US troops are still under threat, and in January of this year three US service members were killed in a drone attack in Jordan.

The Visions

While the debate is intended to let candidates discuss policy and leadership, both candidates also used it as a chance to promote their visions of America and the perspective they would take as president. Nowhere was this more evident than in the closing statements. Harris’ closing statement focused on her own policies, her ideals for the future, and her leadership, with only a single reference to her opponent. She further described her career history and experience that she would bring to the table, recounting her journey from “prosecutor… (to) now vice president” and explaining that throughout her career she has “only had one client: the people.” Harris’ debate work portrayed her as an experienced leader seeking to be a President for all Americans who will protect their fundamental freedoms while working to provide actual policy solutions.

Trump’s closing statement, on the other hand, focused entirely on Biden’s record as president and Harris’ record as vice president, and on the current state of the nation, which he depicted as disastrous. He called America “a failing nation… that’s in serious decline” and described Harris as “the worst vice president in the history of our country.” The only policy achievement from his previous term as president that he listed in his own statement was a brief claim that he  rebuilt the military, a claim he explained in no further detail. Where Harris portrayed herself as a candidate of progress and the future, Trump portrayed himself as a candidate who seeks to return America to a past that he treats as a lost golden age, without providing a roadmap for that proposed revitalization.

The Impact

Vice President Harris was overwhelmingly ruled the winner of the debate, even among conservative media outlets. However, it’s unclear if the debate performance has been influential on the electoral race more broadly. Politico polling analyst Steven Shepard argues that the debate had minimal impact, with polling averages barely changing in the wake of the debate. Pennsylvania saw a 1% shift in the FiveThirtyEight polling average from before the debate to afterwards, but that shift was the largest jump Harris saw among any swing state. Polls in Wisconsin actually shifted away from Harris, with the FiveThirtyEight polling average shifting from +2.4% for Harris before the debate to +1.9% for Harris afterwards. The cultural and media impact of the debate is undoubtedly significant, especially when coupled with Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris in the immediate aftermath of the debate, but it remains to be seen whether the media frenzy will amount to anything at the voting booth at the beginning of November.

Since December 2022, Student Life has hosted a monthly Happy Hour at the Perch, a coffee shop in the Yates-Gill College Union. This event is a nice opportunity for students, staff and faculty members to interact with each other in an informal setting. As non-alcoholic beverages are also served, the event is open to everyone, not just people over 21. 

The last two Happy Hour events – hosted in February and January, respectively – had a greater variety of drinks than the first one. The first Happy Hour just had different kinds of beer. I’m not a huge fan of beer, so I was a little disappointed. However, the latest Happy Hours also had red and white wine. I am not a good judge of the quality of alcohol, so I will just say that I enjoyed my allotted two glasses of white wine. 

The Happy Hours have also consistently had an assortment of snacks like chips, pretzels, popcorn and salsa. As one can get a little peckish while drinking and playing card games or mancala (both of which are available at Happy Hour), the snacks are a nice addition to the event. Plus, chips and pretzels are good replacement poker chips. 

The Happy Hour event is a fun event. The last time I attended, I had a good time playing poker with several faculty and students. It is just a shame that the event does not occur more often. 

Veganism is the belief that animals should not be killed, harmed or exploited for human gain, and the decision to reflect that belief in your actions to whatever degree is “possible and practicable.” Veganism differs from vegetarianism or a plant-based diet in that this is not a diet or a set of restrictions, but rather a worldview that applies to all areas of life. I am of the belief that everyone should take this approach and adopt a vegan lifestyle for the betterment of ourselves and society. 

In the seven years I’ve spent advocating for the rights of animals, I have heard many people argue that not everyone can be vegan. Some go as far as to claim that veganism is classist, ableist and exclusionary. I do not believe this to be the case and here is why.

Like many, I believe that it is wrong for someone to kill another human being. Because of this ethical conviction, I live my life accordingly and refrain from killing other people. This does not mean there are no exceptions. If someone were to attack me, forcing me to choose between preserving my life or terminating theirs, I would not hesitate to protect myself. Because I would be acting in self-defense, I would not be considered a murderer by the standards of any reasonable person or in the eyes of the law. This is a concept that is widely recognized and understood.

If you believe it is wrong to exploit animals for their resources, you might decide to practice veganism. When practicing veganism, the principle I described before still applies. It’s not murder to kill tapeworms, bedbugs or lice. It’s self-defense. Likewise, it is not murder for a person lacking money or shelter to eat a meal that someone gave them while panhandling, or to dumpster dive looking for the only food they might eat that day or even purchase something made with animal products if their only readily available source of food is a gas station with no plant-based options. That is merely self-preservation. 

My understanding of veganism is as follows: when you are presented with a given set of choices, you should choose whichever option harms animals the least. In this way, anyone can be vegan. The consequences of unfavorable circumstances do not strip you of what it means to be vegan.

Veganism is not a purity test. It is a moral philosophy that rejects the commodification of animals and acknowledges that it is unreasonable to maximize harm simply because your very existence warrants at least some level of it. When presented with the option to harm animals and the option not to harm animals, I do not harm animals. There is no acceptable reason not to live this way. To reject veganism is to believe that it is your right to determine whether or not sentient beings should live or die, based solely on palate pleasure, profit incentive and culture/tradition. I struggle to imagine a more entitled worldview.

Not all vegans are likable or reasonable people. Some embrace the “vegan” label without understanding the roots of the vegan movement and speak out of ignorance. Some embrace the “vegan” label without understanding issues of race, class and disability, and let their prejudice get in the way of engaging in meaningful activism. Some embrace the “vegan” label but are so politically incoherent and morally illiterate that informed and reasonable people will have no interest in indulging their ideas. These individuals do not represent vegans or veganism as a whole and should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate the suffering of the most vulnerable creatures on the planet. 

I hope that my understanding and explanation of veganism provides clarity, and persuades you to adopt a vegan philosophy and practice harm reduction in your daily life. To do so is a necessary step to be taken in addition to, not in place of, our efforts to dismantle systematic oppression in all of its forms. Animal rights are essential to any movement claiming to promote freedom, justice, equality and liberation. It is crucial that we empathize with both the exploitation of humans and non-human animals alike. We are not free until we are all free. All means all.