Author: Bea Rakowsky

Categories
Articles

Free Speech at Bucknell: How Are We Protecting It?

In recent years, controversial topics of high interest have become extremely prevalent in US society, bringing up issues of free speech rights across the country. Particularly on college campuses, in the wake of national debates over DEI policies and campus protests, Bucknell University finds itself caught in the middle of balancing the rights of students and faculty to speech and academic freedom with state and federal-level mandates. Our article investigates how different campus groups, from the AAUP to the Open Discourse Coalition, are responding to these challenges. 

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Bucknell faces significant challenges in fostering an environment where students and faculty feel comfortable expressing their views. In FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, which surveyed over 58,000 students across 250 colleges, Bucknell ranked 126th. “This was, in part, due to student survey respondents saying they did not feel comfortable expressing their thoughts with peers and professors on campus, fearing having difficult conversations, and not feeling their university administrators would stand up and defend free speech on campus,” explained Ryan Ansloan, Senior Program Officer at FIRE. 

While Bucknell, as a private institution, isn’t bound by the same free expression obligations as public universities such as Penn State, the university promises free speech protections to its community. Bucknell’s policies state that “students, faculty and staff enjoy the freedoms of expression, assembly and association, subject to institutional limits that protect the regular and orderly operation of the campus.” However, FIRE suggests that merely guaranteeing these protections isn’t enough. Ansloan emphasized that it is more important, and even critical, that the university actually lives up to that guarantee. 

One key recommendation from FIRE is for Bucknell to adopt a “version” of the Chicago Principles, which over 100 other institutions have already embraced. According to Ansloan, doing so could help address some of the specific challenges revealed in FIRE’s campus surveys, specifically students’ hesitancy to engage in difficult conversations and skepticism surrounding the administration’s support for free speech. The Chicago Statement explicitly outlines how free speech rights are put into practice, and affirms “the broadest latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn.” FIRE also recommends that Bucknell implement a Statement of Institutional Neutrality, to let the campus community know that the university is committed to protecting the free speech of its members. “We would be more than happy to assist them in that process,” Ansloan asserted. 

Bucknell’s American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter offers a different perspective on why this adoption might actually undermine the university’s existing protections. “The Chicago Principles were deemed unnecessary at Bucknell, where academic freedom is already protected in our governance documents, such as the Faculty Handbook,” explains Professor Ken Field, President of AAUP’s Bucknell Advocacy Chapter. He argues that rather than strengthening academic freedom, these principles could weaken it by “confusing academic freedom and free speech and by equating the academic freedom of faculty with those of students.” According to Field, the principles prioritize student free speech rights over faculty academic freedom by “specifying punitive actions for faculty without corresponding actions for students,” which he does not believe is the correct way to handle the free speech issue.

As for the current state of free speech at Bucknell, Field suggests that it mirrors the situation at other colleges and universities. He believes that Bucknell does a fine job at protecting free speech as long as it doesn’t infringe upon safety and well-being or academic freedom. When asked what the most pressing issues may be in regards to academic freedom, Field states that “the most pressing issues involve the possibility that the administration may try to restrict academic freedom to accommodate unconstitutional federal policies or executive orders.” To combat these directives, the AAUP, as part of the American Federation of Teachers, is organizing around these issues filing amicus briefs as appropriate. On the local level, he and the Bucknell Chapter are communicating with the provost and general counsel to seek information about these issues, and gathering information about the impact of these changes in policy at Bucknell, which they plan to share with the provost.

In 2025, Bucknell University continues to publicly express its commitment to protecting the rights to free expression on campus. The university states that its goal in advocating for free speech furthers its mission to “educate students for a lifetime of critical thinking and strong leadership characterized by continued exploration,creativity, and imagination.” (Bucknell University, 2025). In times where access to free speech is being constantly tested, the university has claimed to commit to protecting the accessibility of free expression on campus for students, faculty, and staff. 

An interview with Dr. Vernese Edghill-Walden, Vice President of Equity and Inclusive Excellence at Bucknell,  has clarified the programs that Bucknell University has been facilitating in order to encourage students’ and faculty members’ access to free speech on campus. As an institution that supports free speech, publically highlighted on the university website, Dr. Walden believes that Bucknell values and welcomes free speech because “it’s a vital part of the community to build critical thinkers”. 

An important clarification Dr. Walden makes is the distinction between the university facilitating free speech and condoning hate speech, indicating one of the successes of her department is educating students, faculty, and staff about the differences between the two. Hate speech, a common topic many individuals at Bucknell and beyond conflate, was defined by President Bravman as “Hateful speech, acts or symbols – directed toward any individual or group” (Bucknell University, 2023). One of Dr. Walden’s goals in her department was to distinguish the difference between the two, stating, “Free speech can hurt people’s feelings, but it doesn’t necessarily make it hate speech”. As a representative of Bucknell University, Dr. Walden felt that one of the most pressing free speech issues today was the mass fear and hysteria over speaking out. Regardless of the topic, officials – like Dr. Walden – at the very top of the university noticed a large fear in students, faculty, and staff from speaking out for fear of potentially being “hurt, embarrassed, or to be wrong”.  It has become clear that the fear and apprehension of speaking out isn’t coming from a lack of knowledge about students’ rights to free speech, but a fear of a penalty of some kind for their opinions.

The Israel-Palestine conflict, which sparked heated tensions across students on university campuses starting in October in 2023, inspired Dr. Walden’s department to develop methods to facilitate healthy conversations between the Bucknell community. The Dignity and Dialogue Circles, launched at Bucknell and co-trained by the Division of Equity and Inclusive Excellence and the Division of Talent, Culture, and Human Resources, seeks to create a space in order to facilitate healthy discussions about real-world topics that students, faculty, and staff had been yearning for. The circle conversations encourage participants to speak openly and freely from the “I” perspective and, with the facilitation of a trained mediator, allow participants to question and have conversations with one another. The goals of these conversations are to secure healthy ways of facilitating free speech.

Dr. Edghill-Walden also commented on the importance of facilitating in-person conversations vs online communication. Online free speech, “lacks and minimizes accountability”, said Dr. Edghill-Walden. Being able to post comments online creates a one-way line of communication, where people can throw out and say anything they want without having to defend their beliefs. The Dignity and Dialogue style of communication creates a safe space for individuals to share their beliefs regarding different high-interest topics. 

The student body perspective of free speech reveals a shift in the understanding of what is actually permissible on campus in ways that stray from regulation. For instance, the Bucknellian, the school’s primary paper, is non-funded by the University to prevent any biased publishings (Bucknellian.com). This, on paper, aligns directly with the university’s policy on free speech practices. In actuality, students often do not feel comfortable contributing to the paper due to the fear of backlash from fellow students, alumni, faculty, and locals. Additionally, there are limitations to receiving direct comments from staff which dulls the degree of freedom in the commentating.

 “You always have to go through Communications when interviewing staff,” commented Kelsey Werkheiser, the editor-in-chief of the Bucknellian, when describing her struggles with pursuing quotes from important individuals. “I see no reason that I can’t get a quote from the director of an office that was one of the major organizers of an event, but it all boils down to keeping up appearances”.  This idea of Bucknell protecting its image from negative views of the school elicited by students is not usual, especially when it is done to prevent any uncertainty about enrolling from potential students and their families. 

Freas Hall is home to the admissions department where the Bucknellian is often displayed proudly, showcasing the work of the student journalists. Paige Berzinski, a coordinator for the admissions department, described a particular instance where the admissions department removed the newspaper from sight due to the cover article’s statement that an alarming number of women on Bucknell’s campus report cases of sexual assault. 

Additionally, students are not allowed to protest on Malesardi Quad. Malesardi Quad connects the academic buildings and serves as a spot for students to congregate. There is no doubt of how impressive the quad is, Tour guides frequent the quad, often resulting in positive reception from the experience. The restrictions on protesting in this space inhibit the message that students and faculty alike would be attempting to communicate, effectively limiting the freedom of expression on campus. 

With federal policies evolving and universities nationwide grappling with these issues, Bucknell University’s navigation of this complex landscape of academic freedom and open discourse is crucial to maintaining the integrity of freedom of speech. While other universities have faced intense backlash for mishandling global conflicts and the censorship of students and faculty, Bucknell remains a leader as an advocate for mutual respect, civility, and free expression. 

Categories
Memo

Free Speech Article and Academic Freedom: Group Memo

In order to divide up the work, all five group members will interview and investigate different individuals with leadership roles in regards to protecting and advocating for free speech on campus. Alexis will interview Kurt Nelson, the Director of Religious and Spiritual life here at Bucknell. As a leader of the religious community at Bucknell, Kurt seeks to continuously create open and honest discussions, and facilitate multiple interfaith conversations per semester. Kurt has been a constant advocate for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on campus, so he will have an unique perspective into how the reversal of DEI policies at the federal level will have an impact on his campus mission. 

Liana will interview Kelsey Werkheiser, the Bucknellian’s editor-in-chief. Kelsey has extensive experience understanding how free speech policies manifest on a University Campus. Her role as editor has no doubt placed her in a position that shows what is beyond just official literature. Topics of discussion to be brought up are included, but not limited to: challenges student writers face regarding controversial topics, censorship from external parties, representation of all voices on campus, and the newspaper’s relationship with faculty and the surrounding community of Lewisburg. 

Bea will interview Ken Field and Sue Ellen Henry from the Bucknell AAUP Executive Board. She will ask each of their opinions on the Free Speech issue at Bucknell, as well as why the faculty were opposed to adopting the Chicago Principles. She will also ask more specifically about the academic freedom issues at Bucknell. If possible, she would also like to interview a few students on their thoughts as well.

Anna reached out to the Bucknell chapter of AAUP to see if she could attend their Spring meeting but she did not get a response. She has the contact information of some of the people in attendance and will reach out to inquire about their thoughts on the meeting. Anna is also reaching out to the people from the open discourse coalition including Dawn Toguchi and Charles Mitchell, as well as professors in attendance of the vote on the Chicago Principle discussions including Professor Jansson, Professor Traflet, and Professor Murray.

Categories
Articles

Lewisburg Farmers Market: A Market for All Seasons

Whether it’s a sweltering summer day or a frigid morning in February, the Lewisburg Farmers Market is always bustling with activity. Whether you want some fresh produce, a delicious iced coffee, or an assortment of baked goods, the farmers market is the perfect place for you!
The market’s rich history dates back to 1858, when the Union County Agricultural Association purchased ten acres in “Brook Park” for the Union County Fair. For over 70 years, the site hosted the annual fair, complete with a racetrack added in 1907 and a grandstand in 1917. However, the property’s destiny changed in 1937, when Richard Leitzel purchased the land. He held weekly auctions that became so successful that the fair had been forgotten, and the land had a brand new purpose. The Lewisburg Farmers Market had been born.
Today, every Wednesday, local farmers and small business vendors bring their products to the Farmers Market for the people of the community to purchase and enjoy. While the market experiences seasonal fluctuations, its dedicated vendors and customers maintain its vibrant atmosphere year-round. Winter brings its own unique charm to the market. As Ray Zimmerman notes, “the customers dwindle down in the winter due to the cold weather,” but those who brave the chill find the indoor market space alive with activity. Zimmerman sells apples and apple cider from his own farm. After our interview, he sent me away with a free pint of apple cider, which is absolutely delicious. The sense of community grows even stronger in these quieter months, as demonstrated by Terry Miller, who says while packing up a bag of apples from Zimmerman Produce, “I sell produce here in the summer, but I still make sure to come and support the other vendors in the winter even when I am not running my own stand.”
When spring emerges, the market reawakens with early season greens, spring flowers, and starter plants for home gardens. Regular shoppers eagerly anticipate the return of their favorite seasonal vendors and products, while newcomers discover the joy of connecting with local food producers and others from the community.
Open from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm every Wednesday throughout the year, the Lewisburg Farmers Market at 499 Fairground Road isn’t just a place to shop- it’s where neighbors meet neighbors, where children learn where their food comes from, and where the changing seasons are celebrated through the bounty of local agriculture. In every season, the market remains a testament to the enduring spirit of the community here in Lewisburg.

Ray Zimmerman 570 640 0109

Terry Miller 570 850 3905

Categories
Op Ed

Forum: Trump’s Executive Order Eliminating DEI

During the first few days of his presidency, Donald Trump has signed an executive order ending DEI offices and initiatives across the federal workforce.

  • Many feel that this is a good choice, and that DEI actually harms American people and businesses.
  • On the other side, people are bashing Trump’s decision, saying that he is taking America backwards in our fight for equality.

This Forum explores the two dissenting sides, those for DEI, and those who are against it.

What is DEI and why is Trump opposed to it?
What the pushback against a more equal society could mean for a world fraught with power imbalances

By Ashifa Kassam, The Guardian

When American voters headed to the ballot box in November, polls suggested the cost of living, immigration and reproductive rights ranked among their biggest concerns.

But tucked within this week’s barrage of executive orders was an attack on an initiative that had in recent years become increasingly weaponised around the world: measures that sought to tackle discrimination.

Donald Trump signed two executive orders aimed at unwinding the federal government’s decades-long push to ensure an inclusive workplace that reflects American society.

The directives also instruct federal agencies to develop plans to deter diversity, equity and inclusion measures – often referred to as DEI – in the private sector, a move viewed by some as an attempt to ward off companies from addressing discrimination in their workplaces.

Here, we take a look at how the push for a more equal society became a flashpoint in the so-called culture wars, and what it could mean for a world still fraught with power imbalances.

What is DEI?
Put simply, it is a generic label given to the wide-ranging measures that aim to ensure people of all backgrounds – including from historically marginalised groups – can gain a foothold and thrive at organisations.

The roots of the term trace back to the US in the 1960s, with the label used to describe programmes that tackled discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religion and disability.

The measures have long acted as a counter to the biases that quietly endure in so-called colour-blind and merit-based societies, as Rev Al Sharpton, the president of the National Action Network, alluded to this week.

“Why do we have DEI?” he asked a crowd gathered at a black church a few blocks from the White House on Monday. “We have DEI because you denied us diversity, you denied us equity, you denied us inclusion. DEI was a remedy to the racial institutional bigotry practised in academia and in these corporations.”

Why has it come under fire?
In 2023, the US supreme court ruled against race-conscious admission programmes at colleges and universities, reversing decades of precedent. The decision emboldened conservatives and unleashed a flood of lawsuits aimed at dismantling policies designed to foster diversity, equity and inclusion

At the heart of these challenges was the argument that these anti-discrimination measures were in fact discriminatory towards the groups that had historically dominated workplaces, including white Americans.

DEI soon became a talking point, at times acting as a sort of dog whistle and scapegoat, as the measures were falsely blamed for events such as the demise of Silicon Valley Bank, Boeing’s aircraft safety problems and the collapse of a bridge in Baltimore after it was struck by a cargo ship.

The battle against DEI soon became another tool in conservatives’ assault on what they deemed as “woke”, epitomised by Florida’s attempt to pass a “Stop Woke” law that banned companies from requiring diversity training. An appeals court later deemed the law to be a violation of the first amendment.

Those who fuelled the animosity towards DEI included the tech billionaire Elon Musk, who noted on social media: “DEI is just another word for racism. Shame on anyone who uses it.” The stance was later echoed by Trump during his presidential campaign as he claimed there was “a definite anti-white feeling in this country”.

Who has backed these measures?
Trump’s actions this week were swiftly countered by legislators from more than 30 states who, in a letter first reported on by USA Today, argued that the US had long been strengthened by efforts to include everyone, with initiatives such as the expansion of the right to vote and the decision to allow women the right to open bank accounts in their own names. “Anti-DEI rhetoric and policy goals are dangerous, destructive, and discriminatory,” the letter noted. “Ultimately, they erect barriers to our American dreams.”

Mark Cuban speaking on stage at a Kamala Harris election campaign event in Wisconsin, in October.
View image in fullscreen
Mark Cuban speaking on stage at a Kamala Harris election campaign event in Wisconsin, in October. Photograph: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters
Others, such as Mark Cuban, the billionaire businessman and minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks, have highlighted the logic that underpins these measures. “Good businesses look where others don’t, to find the employees that will put your business in the best possible position to succeed,” he wrote on social media. “Having a workforce that is diverse and representative of your stakeholders is good for business.”

What evidence is there to back DEI measures?

In 2022, McKinsey & Company noted that companies that are diverse, equitable and inclusive were better able to respond to challenges, win top talent and meet the needs of varied customer bases. The focus on diversity allowed them to find talent wherever it may be, while the expanding focus on equity and inclusion helped minimise employee turnover, reducing expenses such as hiring and training.

The finding was backed by another report, published in 2020, that analysed 1,000 US firms. It found that companies with greater gender and ethnic diversity were more likely to outperform their peers. The difference was significant, with gender diversity leading to a 25% probability of higher profits, while ethnic diversity led to a 36% probability.

Speaking to CNN in October, Ken Frazier, who as head of Merck between 2011 and 2021 was the first Black chief executive of a large pharmaceuticals company, summed it up: “At its best, DEI is about developing talent, measuring it in a fair way and finding hidden talent and disadvantaged talent in a world where not everybody has an equal chance to exhibit their abilities.”

The experience of the US federal government – the largest employer in the US – also suggests these approaches benefit a wider range of employees. Decades of anti-discriminatory measures had yielded a truly merit-based federal workforce whose demographics reflect the country it sought to serve, said Everett Kelley, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees.

“The federal government has the lowest gender and racial pay gaps of all employers, precisely because employment decisions are made based on one’s ability to do the work and not on where they went to school or who they supported in the last election,” Kelley said this week.

“Undoing these programmes is just another way for President Trump to undermine the merit-based civil service and turn federal hiring and firing decisions into loyalty tests.”

Are DEI measures still needed?
A 2023 poll by Pew Research Center found that six in 10 Americans believed that being white helped a person’s ability to get ahead, with 42% saying it helped a lot. Those surveyed were also more likely to say that being a woman, Hispanic or Asian was more harmful than helpful.

As Trump joined conservatives in rallying against DEI, companies such as Meta, McDonald’s and Amazon were among the many that said they were rolling back efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in their workplaces.

Their exodus belied the fact that much of the private sector remained a laggard on diversity and inclusion. Last year, female chief executives led just 28 of the world’s 500 largest businesses, while Black executives led eight of them – amounting to 1.6% of the total.

How will Trump’s measures play out globally?

To a lesser extent, the debate over diversity and pushback against all seen as woke has for years been a talking point among certain factions of the political establishment in Europe. Last February, the UK’s then defence secretary, Grant Shapps, was reported to be furious after it emerged that the army was considering relaxing security checks in an attempt to increase diversity. Speaking to the Telegraph, Shapps linked the measures to a “political agenda”, adding: “There is a woke culture that has seeped into public life over time and is poisoning the discourse.”

In England, the Department for Education had resisted calls to make the teaching of Black history compulsory, with the then schools minister, Nick Gibb, insisting in 2021 that “a curriculum based on relevance to pupils is to deny them an introduction to the ‘best that has been thought and said’,” while unions representing museum staff expressed fears in 2021 that the culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, was seeking to “airbrush” Britain’s colonialist and racist past.


The then government’s pushback detracted from the work that remained to be done in the UK: in 2020, a survey found that black people held just 1.5% of the 3.7m leadership positions across the UK’s public and private sectors in 2019.

There are similar examples across the continent. In France in 2021, Élisabeth Moreno, the minister tasked with gender equality and diversity in President Emmanuel Macron’s government, dismissed white privilege as a controversial US notion in an interview with Bloomberg.

“Woke culture is something very dangerous, and we shouldn’t bring it to France,” she added. Years earlier, another lawmaker from Macron’s party, François Jolivet, scorned a major French dictionary for including a gender-inclusive pronoun in its online edition, accusing them of being “militants of a cause that has nothing to do with France: #wokisme.”

In Hungary, the prime minister, Viktor Orbán, banned gender studies at universities, claiming that people were born either male or female.

It could be that the debate has failed to take root in much of Europe precisely because most countries insist on a colour-blind approach – one that prevents the collection of demographic data on ethnicity that could establish the prevalence of discrimination in workplaces, the housing market and at the hands of police.

The lack of data could explain why a poll in April of 1,800 managers and employees across nine European countries concluded that just 7% of the workplaces surveyed were building a diverse and inclusive culture.

This article by Ashifa Kassam at The Guardian examines the growing backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, sparked by Trump’s executive orders dismantling federal workplace inclusion measures. It outlines DEI’s historical context, presents evidence of its business benefits, and explores how anti-DEI sentiment has spread globally, while highlighting the continued need for such programs given persistent workplace disparities.

Trump Delivers on His Promise to Dismantle DEI
An Inauguration Day executive order recognizes that Americans are eager to move beyond race.

By Jason L. Riley, Wall Street Journal

President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Jan. 20. Photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/Bloomberg News
Donald Trump’s Second Inaugural Address may not have been one for the ages, but it did meet the moment in at least one crucial respect. The president wants to pivot from his predecessor’s obsession with racial differences, as do millions of Americans of all political stripes.

In his Inaugural Address four years ago, Joe Biden prattled on about “systemic racism” and “white supremacy” and “a cry for racial justice.” Meeting these challenges, he said, “requires more than words. It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy: unity.” A short time later, Mr. Biden issued an executive order on the importance of “racial equity” and “support for underserved communities through the federal government.”

Racial equity used to mean equal treatment regardless of race, but it’s become a progressive euphemism for group preferences. In practice, it means discriminating to achieve racial balance. Mr. Biden, invoking George Floyd’s death in 2020, said that “this nation and this government need to change their whole approach to the issue of racial equity” and make it “not just an issue for any one department of government. It has to be the business of the whole of government.”

For the past four years, that’s exactly what transpired. Federal agencies were directed to “implement or increase the availability” of diversity, equity and inclusion programs surrounding race as well as “gender identity.” Chief diversity officers established “agency equity teams” and submitted annual DEI progress reports. The federal Office of Personnel Management warned that the “intentional use of an incorrect name or pronoun (or both) could, in certain circumstances, contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.” Major laws, including the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, included special benefits for ethnic minorities.

Upon assuming office Monday, Mr. Trump announced that he would put a stop to these efforts, which he believes have been detrimental to national unity. He thanked minority voters for “the tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote” and said that “I will not forget it.” Yet he also vowed to pursue race- and gender-neutral policies in his second term. “I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life,” the president said. “We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit based. As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.”

Later in the day Mr. Trump signed an executive order that effectively reversed the Biden administration’s DEI directives. It calls for the “termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.” Many progressive activists and media elites are no doubt horrified. But for everyday Americans, this is common sense. Changing the targets of government discrimination won’t undo the past. It will simply add to the number of people who have been treated unjustly in this country.

It’s no surprise that increasing the salience of race, and favoring some groups over others, can only harm the social cohesion necessary to sustain a multiethnic society. A Gallup poll released last week found that a plurality of Americans (39%) said that race relations had worsened under Mr. Biden, versus just 24% who said they had improved. Moreover, even fewer respondents (22%) said that the “situation for black people” had improved during the Biden presidency, while 34% said blacks had lost ground.

The evidence has been piling up that the country wants to move past race in ways that the political left continues to resist. The Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling against racial preferences in college admissions didn’t go over well with liberals, but polls show that a large majority of Americans, including most blacks, view the decision favorably.

Writing in the Atlantic recently, George Packer urged fellow liberals to retire the notion that “identity is political destiny.” For decades, he noted, Democrats have told themselves that as “the country turned less white, it would inevitably turn more blue.” According to Mr. Packer, the 2024 election “exploded” that illusion. “Nearly half of Latinos and a quarter of Black men voted for Trump,” he wrote. “In New York City he did better in Queens and the Bronx, which have majority nonwhite populations, than in Manhattan, with its plurality of wealthy white people.”

Mr. Trump has repeatedly outmaneuvered his political opponents on illegal immigration. He may be in the process of doing the same thing when it comes to race relations and the left’s identity-politics mania.

President Trump’s recent executive order eliminating all federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs by January 23, 2025, placing DEI employees on administrative leave. Trump argues these programs promote discrimination and waste taxpayer money, reversing Biden-era policies focused on racial equity. Supporters see this as a move toward merit-based systems, while critics fear it will hinder inclusion efforts. This decision is part of an ongoing national debate on DEI, and we should stay informed on its impact.

Categories
Articles

“I’ve Lived Transition”: George Takei Shares Story of Injustice and Hope

On the evening of Tuesday, January 28th, Bucknell students and the surrounding community gathered together for a Bucknell Forum event at the Weis Center to listen to renowned American actor and writer George Takei share his moving story of struggle and resilience during one of America’s darkest chapters. The Star Trek actor and social justice activist spoke about his childhood experiences in the Japanese internment camps, where the United States incarcerated over 120,000 Japanese Americans following the Pearl Harbor attack during World War II. 

This event came as a part of Bucknell’s MLK week, as well as part of the Bucknell Forum’s 2024-25 theme, “World in Transition,” which Takei found to be quite powerful as he himself has lived through the many transitions of the United States and the world over the years. “I’ve lived transition,” said Takei, “I’ve been called an icon and a legend, but also a jap, and the enemy.” He noted how he, his family, and hundreds of other Japanese American citizens were imprisoned solely for “looking like the people who bombed Pearl Harbor.” The packed auditorium sat in somber silence as Takei, now 87 years old, recounted his family’s forced removal from their home when he was only five years old. They first had to sleep in horse stalls at the Santa Anita Racetrack, before being relocated to the Rohwer camp in Arkansas, and eventually ending up at the Tule Lake camp for “non-loyals” in Northern California. 

One of the most poignant moments came when Takei described the daily routine at the internment camp school that the children attended. “Every day we put our hands on our hearts and recited ‘with liberty and justice for all’ while I looked out the window at the barbed wire and soldiers keeping us there,” Takei recalled, “I was too young to understand the irony.” This moved many in the audience, as they absorbed the weight of this image: American children pledging allegiance to a country that had imprisoned them solely because of their ancestry. The moment shows the stark contradiction between America’s stated ideals and its treatment of its own citizens. 

Takei finished his talk by emphasizing that this is an American story, and that it is so important for Americans to know our history, so that we do not repeat it again. “But we are repeating it again,” he said, drawing parallels to the discriminatory practices that are still alive in American society today. As the United States continues to grapple with issues of discrimination, xenophobia, and social justice, Takei’s message of resilience and the importance of standing up against injustice resonated deeply with the audience. One Bucknell student in the audience, Lauren Nee, class of 2025, said, “After the forum, I think that the Americans should learn about the importance of justice and equality to help prevent racial discrimination and grave injustices. We should work to grow as a society that protects the rights of all citizens and grants freedom.” 

The evening concluded with a Q&A session where students were able to engage with Takei and ask him further questions about his life experiences. One student, Miguel Camacho, class of 2025, was particularly interested in how Takei’s experiences shaped his roles as an actor. Takei explained that he often chooses his roles based on the life experience he can bring to that story, and that Star Trek in particular was a strong parallel to the human condition. Camacho said that he loved being able to “really see how much his life experiences shaped [Takei] into the actor he became. It gave me a lot of perspective.” 

Despite the hardships he endured, Takei’s message was ultimately one of hope and resilience. He urged the audience to learn from the past and actively work towards a more just and equitable future. In the words of Star Trek, “Live Long and Prosper.”

Lauren Nee lmn007@bucknell.edu 203-707-8693

Miguel Camacho mc088@bucknell.edu 305-916-9798

Categories
Articles

In His Own Words: Bucknell Community Rediscovers Martin Luther King Jr.’s Legacy

“After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.” These powerful words from Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech exemplifies his philosophy on social change that must still be understood today. In an era full of uncertainty and fear, it is vital that United States citizens remember King’s message, one that puts love above violence on the road to social justice. 

On Friday, January 24th, Bucknell University students and faculty met in the Elaine Langone Center’s Diversity and Inclusion Multipurpose Room to listen to Martin Luther King Jr.’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech and have a critical conversation about the depth of his message, and how it can still be applied today. Juliana Fedorko, Class of 2025, a member of the Bucknell Student Government and a student representative for MLK Week, led the discussion. When asked why it was so important to gather and listen to King’s speech, she said that “during our current political climate, many people have been taking the words of Martin Luther King and skewing them to fit their own agendas.” She emphasized the importance of us “listening critically to his deeper message so that we can apply his teachings to the world around us today. “

Many students spoke up about how their previous education systems failed to go into depth about civil rights leaders such as MLK, as they were often introduced through brief excerpts from his “I Have a Dream” speech or isolated moments in the civil rights movement. Some students noted that while predominantly Black schools offered a more comprehensive coverage of civil rights history, predominantly white institutions treated the movement as something that “solved racism” and therefore required no further discussion. Many felt that they had to learn about the current struggles that minorities still face through their own personal research, and now get to engage more deeply through their classes and community discussions such as these at Bucknell. 

One striking aspect of King’s message that was deeply examined during the discussion is his consistent emphasis on love and nonviolence as transformative forces. Drawing from biblical principles, he positioned these not just as passive concepts, but as active strategies for achieving justice. This perspective challenges some modern-day narratives that social change requires violent uprisings. Kelly Knox, Associate Professor of Dance, shared a profound reflection on the speech’s continued relevance, “King had a certain faith in humanity, which is very striking thinking of the week that we’ve had and how we are still trying to keep that faith. It’s like this is a cycle that happens over and over again. I couldn’t believe how relevant this speech felt. It feels sad that we are not yet where King would want us to be, and not even on the road there.” Her comments emphasize the ongoing struggle for racial and social equality in the United States.

By creating space for deep listening and critical reflection, the organizers and participants hope to move beyond performative remembrance and begin taking action to continue King’s fight for equality that is still left unresolved in this country. As conversations about racial justice continue to evolve, events like this serve a crucial purpose. They remind people that understanding historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. requires more than memorizing quotes. It demands deep listening, critical engagement, and a commitment to continuing the work of creating a more just society.

Juliana Fedorko- jif002@bucknell.edu

Kelly Knox- kknox@bucknell.edu