On August 15, Davidson’s International Student Engagement Office notified students that the College would be pausing all future Curricular Practical Training (CPT) authorizations and cancelling those approved.

Chambers Building, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Without CPT authorization, international (F-1 visa-holding) students are legally barred from engaging in any off-campus internship or research in the United States. As The Lux previously reported:

“The policy change follows an August 12th broadcast message from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP, which oversees institutions enrolling F-1 students. The message did not rewrite the federal regulation governing CPT, which requires it to be ‘an integral part of an established curriculum.’ Instead, SEVP announced increased scrutiny of CPT authorizations and specified that CPT only be authorized when it is a requirement of the degree for all students in the degree program.”

Now, Davidson’s administration, faculty, and international student body are trying to cooperate and find possible solutions.

International Students Respond

Davidson’s decision has left some in the international body frustrated: “They’re thinking of this in the long term, which sacrifices those here,” a student remarked.

Another bluntly stated, “We’re highkey f***ed.”

Frustration was common among those interviewed, though most ultimately said they understood Davidson’s response.

“Initially, we thought Davidson was one of the only five colleges that paused the authorizations, but it turns out that a lot of schools have done that now. I think it is a conclusion across the board [that] Davidson just acted faster, because their class year starts earlier,” Davidson International Association (DIA) Vice President Amber Simnani said.

On the question of whether Davidson is coordinating its response with other colleges, Chief Communications & Marketing Officer Mark Johnson wrote to The Lux that member institutions of the Association of International Educators and Associated Colleges of the South (ACS) were discussing approaches. He also stated that the College works with lobbyists and consultants in Washington who examined the topic on the week of September 6th and continue to share information and ideas.

The reality remains grim, however. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers’ 2026 Internship & Co-op Report, 63.1% of interns were converted into full-time hires. For international students, the reality is quite different: DIA President Murtaza Nikzad shared results from an international student survey in which 84% of respondents reported they had been dissuaded from seeking an internship or off-campus research opportunity, while 26% had an offer or were in an interview process that the CPT change prevented them from pursuing. As Murtaza explained, “This impact data was gathered from a whole lot of people from different majors: math, biology, economics, PPE, data science, chemistry, and more.” The regulations appear to have reached international students across a wide range of fields of study.

This Isn’t Isolated, But it is Different

The current federal US administration has a record of restricting international students. It has placed travel bans for students from over 20 countries, put a $100,000 price on the H-1B visa, and enforced strict social media monitoring for students seeking or maintaining a visa.

The international students that The Lux had spoken to unanimously agreed that the new CPT regulations were just another step in isolating them.

“It was obviously a shock, but at the same time it was like an anticipated shock, you know? Because I think this new CPT guidance is just one of the many acts that the federal agency has put in place to restrict international students,” says one member of the community.

Another student characterized the broadcasts and memos as a strategy borrowed from the idea of deterrence as put by the economist Thomas Schelling: the government isn’t taking a decisive step, but laying the groundwork and leaving the outcome to chance, a strategy that also shields the administration from lawsuits it couldn’t otherwise avoid. “This is no longer rule of law; this is rule by law,” the student said, arguing officials now hold a stack of regulations they can apply selectively, whenever it serves them, “and as a consequence, schools are deterred.”

Simply put, the federal administration has threatened to decertify schools that fail to comply, but it is unclear which schools might actually face that risk. For institutions such as Davidson, the risk of being dragged into a fight with the government or having students’ visas revoked outright is the critical decision-making factor. Therefore, such institutions have largely complied.

This seems to have been the exact rationale for Davidson’s immediate compliance. As Director of International Student Engagement Angie Edwards, wrote to The Lux in an email, “We recognize that this is disappointing and disruptive, but our immediate concern is ensuring that students remain in compliance with their immigration status.”

Working on Solutions

Although some have assumed that there is little being done about the issue, The Lux’s investigations have found the opposite to be true. As Dr. Shelly Rigger, the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty, wrote in an email response to The Lux, “Everyone in administration is working together to get the best outcome for students. There is robust collaboration and cooperation across the different divisions of the college.”

Representatives from DIA met with President Douglas Hicks on September 8th to discuss the response. Simnani wrote after the meeting, “It actually contradicted the initial assumption that little is being done. In fact, it has become clear that the faculty actually cares a lot (and inadvertently the administration) beyond just a utilitarian cost-benefit perspective!”

So what are some possible solutions to help navigate the new regulations? One solution being floated is a Student Government Association bill recommending the addition of one required experiential learning experience to Davidson’s graduation requirements. While the bill itself would be non-binding, the faculty and administration might use it to debate an actual requirement. This would affect all students on campus, regardless of citizenship.

Another solution would be the creation of interdisciplinary majors or minors that could be designed by students in a way such that an experiential learning opportunity becomes required for graduation. “So far Dr. [Britta] Crandall seems to be very positive, but I think the CIS [Center for Interdisciplinary Studies] is also very cautious because they don’t want to do something that makes it seem like they’re trying to break the rules,” Simnani said.

Other efforts have focused on making on-campus opportunities more accessible. “We are just starting these conversations [regarding on-campus opportunities], but I know faculty will create as many on-campus opportunities as they are able to support – as they do every year! I am confident of that because Davidson has a good record of attending to students’ need for summer experiences,” Dr. Rigger wrote to The Lux. DIA is also working with the newly created Martin Institute for Public Good to take advantage of opportunities created by the initiative. Moreover, in a September 13th meeting with the general international student body, DIA representatives stated that they are also looking at expanding opportunities through the Jay Hurt Hub.

Even so, there is a sentiment that these are as Simnani described: “like putting bandages on the students that are currently here.” Additionally, these proposals are presently speculative and being considered by the various bodies of the college administration.

Moving Forward While Facing the Consequences

The larger implications of the CPT policy have not been lost on students and faculty at Davidson. A faculty member described the current administration’s general policies as “anomalous” and said that the policy results in a “lose-lose” scenario. A student first-hand describes the effects: “I’ve already spoken to folks where I’m from, and they’re much more discouraged from studying here [the US]. I think that might be the point, the ideological result the administration is aiming for.”

There is also the important question of what those international students already here should do. As Simnani explained, “It’s a very difficult thing to process, just because students envision themselves doing that competitive investment banking internship or some engineering work for so long and now they can’t do it anymore. It has taken a toll on people’s mental health.”

Dr. Shelly Rigger wrote a message she wished to be included in full specifically regarding this question:

“I would recommend that all students — international and domestic — sit down with their advisors and mentors, including mentors in the Matthews Center, and have a deep conversation about their aspirations and life goals. What kind of person do you want to be? What problems are you hoping to solve? What kind of work environments appeal to you?

With those big questions in mind, students can talk to their advisors and mentors about the myriad opportunities Davidson offers for personal growth and learning, and how the full range of experiences can help students both build a resume and come to a better understanding of what they want out of life. Sometimes students get stuck on a relatively narrow path, thinking that’s the only thing that will get them where they want to go. I’m here to tell you: the world is bigger than you realize, and the narrow path is never the only one, and rarely the best one.”

Finally, there is increasing concern about how these policies affect free speech on campus. “There is a reason why I’m giving this interview anonymously. International students are scared out of their wits as of this moment to speak out in public. We need to be careful about our social media, what we speak, and who we speak it in front of” a student said.

Interviewees stated the need for unanimity: “Stay close to the international students, I suppose…this is a time for solidarity.” They also stated a need to be informed. “Honestly, the best thing I think any American student could do would be to remain informed and also just support international students.” Another emphasized, “Get to know the issue and speak up. We don’t have the First Amendment protecting us. You do. I understand the rational disincentive to not do anything about it. But this reflects a broader trend of crackdowns on the freedom of speech and expression across this country.”

Cooperation between the Davidson administration and the international student body is ongoing, but slow. The larger solutions, which are still only “bandages”, will have to go through the administrative process and could take semesters or even years. As the situation stands, Davidson international students are forced to sit with their hands tied as internship deadlines and their career prospects pass by.

While most students were away from campus on summer break, their polling place was quietly removed as part of a concerted effort to suppress student participation in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. Davidson is just one on a list of North Carolina schools facing similar treatment.

Just a half mile walk away, across campus and down Main Street, the Davidson Town Hall has served as a convenient voting site for as long as almost all students have been here. Though it remains available on Election Day, November 3rd, the closest early voting site for Davidson residents and students will be Cornelius Town Hall, entailing an unpleasant forty-five-minute walk down Main Street.

But it’s not just Davidson students: according to the College Democrats of North Carolina (CDNC), 21 of the 30 NC colleges and universities they track have early voting sites a mile or more away, with 13 of those being over 1.5 miles away, a distance which CDNC president Beck Whitehead described as simply an “unrealistic” walk for most. These include some of NC’s largest schools such as NC State, UNC Charlotte, and NC A&T, the nation’s largest historically black university.

Whitehead, an NC State student, describes his school’s voting site transition: “To see it get moved from our student union really to anywhere farther away is really upsetting [...] [I walked] to the new site to see how far it was, and it was about a 20-to-30-minute walk across a four-lane major highway.” He stressed that the old site garnered a campus culture of voting participation and that the new site would likely deter many student-voters.

Student action has not been fruitless, however, in fighting this suppression. Preceding the primary elections earlier this year, the Jackson County Board of Elections removed Western Carolina University’s early voting site. What remained was a 1.5-mile walk down a four-lane highway with no sidewalks or guardrails, and a site which according to WCU student and voting advocate Seth Digh, had “very limited parking” and couldn’t “handle the number of anticipated voters.”

Digh and other advocates raised awareness through social media posts and by organizing a march to the polls on February 13th. The march, including over eighty community members, showcased the dangerous walk and the ineffectiveness of the new voting site.

This past July, NC Local uncovered texts of Dallas Woodward, former Executive Director of the North Carolina Republican Party, texting the Jackson County Board of Elections (JCBOE) chair, “Don’t let them have a vote,” referring to WCU students. At the time, Woodward worked for Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek, who was given power in 2024 to control election boards in the state by NC’s Republican-controlled legislature.

What started as a more liberal movement in the form of the poll march turned into a bipartisan student initiative over the summer to restore voting access to WCU for the general election, with both partisan campus organizations issuing a joint statement to the State Board of Elections. With the help of Republican JCBOE member Jay Pavey, who broke with his party, WCU was given a new site which Digh described as “a compromise that I’m totally fine with.”

Whitehead commended Digh and WCU’s students: “It was much more openly bipartisan. And I think that’s why they got a voting site back. [...] They did a better job of being vocal, being visible, and being bipartisan. And that’s definitely a lesson [the CDNC] can learn.”

Early voting is convenient for the college student’s busy schedule, and, unlike normal Election Day, allows same-day voter registration. This means that it’s easier to vote for the first time, as many college students do, and that any problem with an existing registration can be solved by quickly re-registering. Without convenient early voting sites, many simply don’t bother, and those who do must choose between traveling further or risking their votes’ security.

As Davidson moves into early voting next month, campus political organizations and students should be careful to stay informed, plan ahead, and help each other get registered and get transportation. As Digh stated in a recent speech at a voters’ rally in Raleigh, “We will not walk on the side of the highway alone.”

A year ago, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released its annual report, giving Davidson College a D- for campus freedom of speech. FIRE’s 2025 rankings included over 250 colleges and universities, building cases for each institution through student surveys, campus policies, and speech-related controversies.

While Davidson scored relatively well in preventing “disruptive conduct,” the school scored far lower in “comfort expressing ideas” – 198th out of 257. This was consistent with a campus-wide trend towards self-censorship: 41% of Davidson survey respondents said they had self-censored on campus at least once a month in the past year.

FIRE is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting First Amendment rights, though it has received criticism in recent years for taking partial and biased stances on hot-button issues. The organization rebuts this, emphasizing that defending the First Amendment means protecting speech consistently across the entire political spectrum, regardless of the shifting political landscape.

On Wednesday morning, FIRE released its report for the 2026 academic year, and out of the 261 colleges and universities reviewed, Davidson ranked 63 – a 15-spot jump in the national rankings, and a 3.3-point increase that raised the college from a D- to a D in free speech.

In the report last year, Davidson’s administration was criticized for encroaching on students’ First Amendment rights, after the school charged its Young America’s Foundation (YAF) chapter – which supports conservative students’ projects through external funding – with harassment for handing out pro-Israel pamphlets. FIRE cited the incident as an example of the college overstepping on campus speech, contributing to a polarized environment.

This year, Davidson College improved in nearly every category on the FIRE report. The 3.3-point increase, along with the jump from a D to a D+ in the “Comfort Expressing Ideas” sub-category, indicates major growth in how the college actively protects students’ First Amendment rights.

President Doug Hicks ‘90 credited part of this increase to the recent establishment of the D.G. and Harriet Wall Martin Institute for Public Good, announced in February 2026. “Last month, Davidson hosted representatives from 24 schools in the first cohort of the Deliberative Citizenship Network, a new national initiative led by Davidson,” wrote Hicks in his statement to The Davidson Lux.

Hicks also pointed to Davidson’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression as a driving force in the school’s improved FIRE score. In its reports, FIRE considers whether the academic institution under review has adopted The Chicago Statement for Free Speech, a document which guarantees “all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.” Davidson College’s own commitment, modeled after the University of Chicago’s, asserts that the school’s “fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate, discussion and deliberation may not be suppressed.” While the statement itself is not a recent implementation, the administration’s recent push to actively uphold the statement’s values – through endorsing dialogue initiatives across campus – likely helped drive the improvement in both the national ranking and the Administrative Support category.

Still, FIRE’s report suggests Davidson’s progress is ongoing: the college has made clear improvements in the past year, but continues to struggle to protect its students’ First Amendment rights when case-by-case situations arise. Along with adopting an official policy of Institutional Neutrality, FIRE advises that “Davidson should respond clearly and forcefully whenever censorship occurs or is demanded” to demonstrate its commitment to free speech.

Davidson College has paused new Curricular Practical Training authorizations for international students and canceled those already approved for the fall semester. International students learned of the change just over a week before classes were set to begin, in an August 15 email from the International Student Engagement office (ISE).

CPT is a form of work authorization that allows eligible F-1 students to participate in off-campus internships, research and other practical training that is part of an established curriculum and directly related to the student’s major area of study. At Davidson, international students have historically used CPT for opportunities connected to courses such as XPL 199 and XPL 099, which pair internships with academic coursework, as well as Davidson in Washington, which combines a Washington, D.C.-based internship with a political science seminar for course credit.

The policy change follows an August 12th broadcast message from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP, which oversees institutions enrolling F-1 students. The message did not rewrite the federal regulation governing CPT, which requires it to be, “an integral part of an established curriculum.” Instead, SEVP announced increased scrutiny of CPT authorizations and specified that CPT only be authorized when it is a requirement of the degree for all students in the degree program. This new guidance comes after SEVP purportedly “observed a rise in CPT authorizations that do not meet regulatory requirements.”

Although Davidson has allowed students to receive academic credit for off-campus internships and research, those experiences are not required for a student to complete a Davidson degree.

In its message to students, Davidson said that after consulting college and immigration legal counsel, it determined its current curriculum could no longer safely support CPT authorization under SEVP’s stricter interpretation. “We do not want to do anything that puts students at risk of losing their legal F-1 visa status or facing future U.S. visa denials, nor will we do anything that jeopardizes the institution’s certification to host international students,” the International Student Engagement Office said in the email.

What this Changes

The change does not affect international students’ ability to work on campus, including on-campus research, nor does it apply to internships or research conducted outside the United States. Optional Practical Training, or OPT, a separate form of employment authorization requiring USCIS approval, remains unaffected.

Notably, Davidson is canceling CPT authorizations that had already been approved for the fall semester. That approach differs from UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and Santa Clara University, which also paused or suspended CPT processing in response to the federal guidance but allowed previously issued fall authorizations to remain in effect. The ISE wrote that “institutions have different curricula and policies so this shift will not impact all colleges and universities in the same way” and that “each institution has unique circumstances that make simple comparisons difficult.”

“I had an internship lined up for the fall, and Davidson had already approved it. Now, just days before the semester begins, I’m being told I can’t do it,” said one international student who asked to remain anonymous. The student was among those whose fall plans were disrupted when Davidson canceled previously approved CPT authorizations.

“The news about the CPT policy change came as a deeply demotivating and disturbing shock to the members of the DIA community,” said Amber Simnani ’29, vice president of the Davidson International Association. “Against the backdrop of an increasingly uncertain job market and travel bans, the new restrictions have further heightened anxieties.”

The International Association has been working with offices across Davidson to explore possible alternatives for affected students. “We’ve been in communication with the Hurt Hub, the Dean of Students Office, the International Student Engagement Office and other department heads to figure out ways to incorporate credit-bearing internship courses into major requirements or other solutions that’ll help students navigate this situation,” Simnani said.

DIA has also been coordinating with international student organizations at other campuses to compare how schools are responding to the CPT guidance. Students have connected through Instagram and created group chats to share university announcements, compare policy changes and discuss how the new guidance is affecting international students.

Davidson has yet to announce whether the suspension will remain in place beyond the fall semester or what longer-term changes, if any, the college will pursue.

How can something be both extraordinary and rare if it’s being done in institutions across the country, and at a better rate than ours?

Of course it is important to acknowledge that a fair policy that gets more low- and middle-income students into Davidson without loans is great, full stop. What is worth questioning, is that the students and the public have been left with more questions than answers in the wake of the announcement. The announcement does answer some important questions, but leaves others to speculation, including how the policy will be funded, why it applies only to future classes, and what it changes relative to Davidson’s existing aid model. If Davidson can pull this off without costing current students anything, in aid, in quality of life, in the things that make the school so exceptional, then Davidson deserves every bit of praise it’s giving itself.

Late, Not Leader

Davidson’s historical policy, meeting full demonstrated need with grants instead of loans, dates back to 2007. This announcement doesn’t change that policy, as Jay Pfeifer, Director of Media Relations, noted when asked for comment. The change we see then, is a delineation of incomes being marketed as a step forward.

In fact, Davidson isn’t leading in this charge as they wish to think: Harvard went free for families earning under $100,000, and tuition free for families earning up to $200,000 beginning with the 2025–26 academic year. MIT, Carnegie Mellon, UT Austin, Penn, UMass, and Michigan all expanded need-based financial aid in 2024–25, with different income thresholds and benefits. Yale announced that it will make tuition free for families earning up to $200,000 beginning in 2026–27; under its current policy, families earning under about $150,000 generally pay no tuition. Princeton covers the full cost of attendance for families earning up to $150,000, and most families under $250,000 pay no tuition. Caltech is tuition free for families earning under $200,000. In fact, Washington and Lee, one of Davidson’s named peer institutions, has been free for families making under $75,000 since fall 2014, and expanded to tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less in 2017. By the time Davidson made this announcement, in July 2026, it was simply following a trend that seems to come close to standard practice at this point, at a threshold lower than almost everyone else on that list.

The Grandfather Clause

The new pricing only applies to students entering in fall 2027. Current students, including the Class of 2030 entering this fall, are not covered by the new pricing model. I asked Jay Pfeifer why the school raises the cost of attendance on students already enrolled in real time but is waiting two years to extend a cost decrease. His answer failed to address the question: “Current students’ aid packages will not look significantly different than those students entering in the fall of 2027 and beyond. The pricing has been simplified, not changed.” Davidson doesn’t wait to apply price increases only to new classes as they arrive on campus, it only waits when the number is moving the other way.

There are north of 2,000 students paying Davidson’s bills right now. The announcement reads like it was written for families deciding where to apply next year, not for them, and they’re left watching a new wave of students arrive paying nothing while their own bills stay the same.

Where the Money Comes From

When posed the question, “How is this policy funded: increased endowment draw, tuition increases for families above $175,000, changes to how need is calculated for that band, or some combination?” Pfeifer told me Davidson spent about $80 million on financial aid last year and expects to spend $85 million this year, a roughly 6% increase, and said the policy, “does not shift the burden of financial aid to other populations nor will it lead to exceptional increases in other expenses.” Davidson hasn’t said how many additional students it expects to newly qualify for full tuition under the wider $85-175k band, which is the number we would need to see if their projected increase in aid expenditure will follow, or whether the gap eventually shows up somewhere else: in tuition for families above the line, or perhaps in a meal plan that already gets more complaints about cost than it gets credit for quality.

At least we can rest assured that Davidson is exempt from the new federal endowment tax because it enrolls fewer than 3,000 students, so the pressure that’s pushing larger endowments like Emory’s toward tuition hikes isn’t really in play here. The simpler question is whether the money the college is willing to pay will cover what is promised.

The Selling Point?

Chris Marsicano, the Chair of Education Studies and Director of the newly created Institute for Public Good, shared in a LinkedIn post the day of the announcement that the policy “isn’t much different from what Davidson has done since 2007.” He also reported, based on external studies, that roughly half of American households would qualify for free tuition and fees under the new threshold, and about 80% would qualify for free tuition alone.

Davidson admits domestic students without regard to their ability to pay. It has now guaranteed full aid to an income band that, by Marsicano’s own numbers, covers the majority of American households. So the question is: with a fixed class size and need-blind admission, is there any internal planning for what happens if an unusually large share of qualified applicants in a given year come in under $85,000? Pfeifer’s full answer to that question: “Davidson’s deep commitment to access and affordability dates back to 2007, when the college eliminated loans for aid packages. We are unwavering in our commitment to making an education accessible and affordable to all qualified students.” That response reiterates Davidson’s longstanding commitment to aid but does not directly address the question. Without a more detailed answer, it remains unclear how Davidson plans for fluctuations in student financial need while maintaining a need-blind admissions policy. The worry is that the school will have to cap the number of students at different rates of need, or that tuition for students that can “pay” based on their calculated output will soar even more.

In the end, Davidson’s financial aid is real, and it matters enormously to the students who get it, and to the culture it brings to the school. This announcement could be completely positive, and an unambiguously good story. Whether it stays one depends on whether Davidson can actually show its work. Will this aid cost students in other ways? An announcement built on words like “leader” and “extraordinary” deserves to be checked against what it actually changes, who it reaches, and what needs further clarification. So far, every direct question in this piece has gotten the same answer: a reminder that Davidson has been generous since 2007, and that’s a history lesson, not an explanation.

Yesterday, The Atlantic published an essay arguing that liberal arts colleges have been relatively resilient amid the recent turmoil in higher education. As universities confront the rise of generative AI and increased political pressure from the Trump administration, the essay contends that the liberal arts model may be better positioned to withstand these challenges than large research institutions.

The writer, Ian Bogost, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, visited “four elite liberal arts colleges” during the fall admissions cycle, including Amherst, Vassar, Smith, and Davidson. Bogost joined prospective students on campus tours, sat in on classes, and talked with students, faculty, and administrators about the issues currently facing higher education. Writing from his position at a major research university, Bogost contrasted what he observed at these campuses with dynamics he said he rarely encounters at large universities.

Bogost’s primary observation is that small colleges have far less to lose from the administration’s threat to pull federal funds. While Davidson receives roughly $5 million in federal research grants, that figure pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions flowing into major research universities.

However, Bogost warns that this insulation is fragile. While Davidson’s low reliance on federal grants staves off immediate leverage, broader legislative threats are mounting—specifically the 2025 increase in the endowment tax from 1.4% to 8%. Although schools with fewer than 3,000 students are currently exempt from the increase, the shifting political climate suggests this carve-out may not last. As a leading liberal arts college in the South, Davidson remains a likely symbolic target for the administration’s “war on higher ed.”

Bogost specifically highlighted Davidson as a counterexample to conservatives’ claims that elite colleges function as political “echo chambers.” He saw the college as comparatively effective at navigating political polarization, noting that it physically sits on the county line between heavily Democratic Mecklenburg County and heavily Republican Iredell County. Bogost suggested that this geographic divide is reflected in campus life, pointing to Davidson’s creation of the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative in 2019 as an effort to encourage structured dialogue across political differences.

Bogost also suggested that Davidson may be better positioned than many larger universities to confront challenges posed by generative AI. He pointed to the college’s honor code and small class sizes, which he said encourage students to internalize expectations around academic integrity and discuss appropriate AI use with peers, rather than rely solely on enforcement by professors. Bogost argued that the resulting uncertainty and debate around AI use reflect a level of student investment that is often absent at larger institutions. He described this struggle to understand the technology as a necessary precursor to developing more effective AI policy.

The Lux reached out to President Douglas Hicks for comment on Davidson’s inclusion in the piece.

“I’m delighted that The Atlantic highlighted the work we do here at Davidson to prepare our students for lives of leadership and service and to foster a culture of mutual respect. The article emphasized that Davidson and the other colleges that were featured might be small but make a large and transformative impact in the world. I’m proud to be included in the story with our colleagues at Amherst, Smith, and Vassar.”

Others weren’t as lucky. O’Leary recalled business owners returning to find nothing left. “The building’s gone — everything in it’s gone,” he said. “Their whole life is just washed away.”

The flood destroyed 45 buildings, including nearly a third of the town’s businesses. Most business owners lacked flood insurance, leaving many with no option but to leave in the aftermath.

After the flood, Chimney Rock was largely inaccessible. The main road into town had been washed away, forcing recovery crews to enter on foot before temporary roads could be built. For the following months, crews worked on debris removal and utility repairs. With access now available, many residents and businesses returned, though others were left deciding whether rebuilding was possible at all.

Since then, the town adopted a long-term recovery plan called Raise the Rock. Developed with outside planners and local officials, the plan aims to redesign Chimney Rock with future flood risk in mind.

As part of broader recovery efforts across Western North Carolina, Dr. Matt Fox, Director of Social and Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship at North Carolina State University, spent time in the region at the start of 2025 identifying needs related to innovation and entrepreneurship. Knowing his program could not support every community on its own, he reached out to other colleges and universities across the state, including Davidson.

“As part of a larger initiative started by Dr. Fox, the Davidson College Consulting Group is working with small businesses in Chimney Rock,” said Amy Tirpak, the consulting operations manager at the Hurt Hub. She emphasized that Davidson’s involvement is part of a broader effort, with students from Campbell University, Wake Forest, and East Carolina University also working across Western North Carolina.

The Davidson College Consulting Group is a program managed by the Jay Hurt Hub for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and is made up of about 30 students who take on short-term projects for startups and small businesses. Services include website creation, market research, data analysis, graphic design, and other digital services.

This past fall semester the group completed seven projects for businesses in Chimney Rock, including market research, data analysis, website creation, website performance audits, brand voice development, and the creation of a retail product line. One project analyzed visitor data from Chimney Rock State Park to better understand who was visiting after the town reopened last summer. The findings helped inform marketing campaigns coordinated with the county tourism board.

Building on that work, the group will complete four additional projects this spring, including financial modeling, data analysis, growth strategy, and website creation.

To better understand the needs of the businesses they were supporting, students traveled to Chimney Rock. Entering the town, foundations had been wiped away and piles of rubble were scattered across the riverbank. In spite of the destruction, shops were open, and visitors stopped for lunch at the local smokehouse. Now, over a year after the flood, the town carried a sense of normalcy.

During the visit, students met with business owners, listening to their stories and learning how they had been trying to get back on their feet.

“I thought it was important for us to see the devastation in person,” said Tirpak. She noted that while images and videos circulate online, it’s different when you’re actually standing at the edge of a drop-off where a building once stood. “When you’re face to face with a business owner who’s lost everything, it’s different than just reading about it in an article.”

Mayor Peter O’Leary welcomed the partnership. “It’s very encouraging to see universities and colleges like Davidson reach out and offer their assistance,” he said. “We don’t need people to come in and do the labor, but a lot of us need help with marketing, with internet, and strategic planning.”

Sixteen months after the flood, Chimney Rock is hopeful and working toward full restoration in the years ahead. “It’s been hard trying to get motivated to rebuild and restart,” O’Leary said. “But we’ve had tremendous support from customers, people in the area, and people all over the country.”

Learn more about the Raise the Rock initiative here

Stephen Curry ’10 came back to a sold-out Belk Arena on Dec. 30, as state leaders, alumni, and students gathered in Davidson to celebrate the official renaming of I-77 Exit 30 as the Stephen Curry Interchange. The ceremony took place during Davidson’s double-overtime matchup against Duquesne.

The Town of Davidson and the North Carolina Department of Transportation jointly approved the renaming of I-77 Exit 30 as the Stephen Curry Interchange in 2023. The interchange, which directs drivers toward campus via Griffith Street, matches the No. 30 jersey Curry wore at Davidson and throughout his NBA career. The number is a tribute to his father, Dell Curry, who donned a No. 30 jersey throughout his ten seasons with the Charlotte Hornets.

The legacy of the number resonates across generations of Wildcats. “I’ve always been a fan of Davidson because I really believe that Davidson does athletics right,” said Billy Pierce ‘71 during a pregame reception. Pierce wore the same No. 30 jersey decades before Curry’s arrival.

At halftime, Curry emerged on the court with Davidson President Doug Hicks, the N.C. Secretary of Transportation Daniel Johnson, and several prominent guests, including U.S. Senator Thom Tillis and former Governor Roy Cooper. President Hicks and Secretary Johnson presented Curry with the NCDOT highway sign that will be placed at Exit 30 in Davidson to honor him.

“This is a big night for Davidson, Steph Curry, and the State of North Carolina,” former Governor Cooper told The Davidson Lux. “We are so proud to name this road after Steph because he means so much to the state.” Cooper went on to express how important Curry’s charitable contributions have been to helping those in need.

The evening concluded with a tense, double-overtime struggle that saw the lead trade hands until the final seconds. Despite a resilient effort from the Wildcats, the Duquesne Dukes ultimately pulled ahead in the second extra period to secure an 89–83 victory.

Regardless of the loss, Bob McKillop, who coached Curry during Davidson’s 2008 Elite Eight run, saw this night as a success that transcended the scoreboard.

“It’s a magical night for the Davidson team,” said McKillop in an interview with The Davidson Lux. “They demonstrated great tenacity and resilience. Clearly, Stephen brings joy to everyone—the crowd demonstrated that.”

Nearly a thousand people crowded onto Davidson’s historic campus to witness the unveiling of With These Hands: a memorial to the enslaved and exploited people whose labor built and sustained the college in its formative years. The installation of two enormous weathered cast-iron hands now sits on the ground where enslaved workers once worked. The October 23rd dedication, drawing students, alumni, faculty, administrators, trustees, community members, and descendants of the enslaved, marked the most visible institutional acknowledgment yet of Davidson’s historical role in slavery.

The artist of the memorial, Hank Willis Thomas, told the crowd that he chose to focus on hands because “everything that has been built, up until very recently, was built by human hands.” He left out a face to make clear that, in the eyes of enslavers, nothing about the person mattered except for what their hands could produce. What moved him, he said, were the physical records the human body leaves behind: “the power of those hands and the stories that are embedded in them.” The sculpture, he insisted, is meant to long outlive this moment of reckoning.

“My hope is that 200 years from now this community will be better off because of this.” Thomas imagined a future in which his descendants might look up at these cast-iron hands, happily acknowledge their presence, and move on, not out of indifference, but because the fight that required such monuments would no longer be necessary.

President Doug Hicks ‘90 said the college’s goal was to provide “a fuller history” that gives Davidson greater integrity moving forward. The monument, he said, has already “opened up conversations with our neighbors,” especially in historically Black areas of the town of Davidson. He contrasted the memorial with the decision not to rename the Chambers Academic Building, currently named after slaveowner Maxwell Chambers, describing the college’s approach as “adding to the history, not removing names from it.”

For Africana Studies professor Hillary Green, whose archival work expanded the known list of enslaved individuals from ten names to more than five hundred, the physical form of the piece is inseparable from its meaning. The cupped hands, she observed, are emblematic of the actions of the enslaved in carving the ground and laying the bricks. They also honor the descendants who, decades later, were there to embrace and comfort Davidson students who felt homesick or alone.

Throughout the dedication, there was a discussion on the history of labor at the college dating back 250 years. Castella Connor, a local community leader, traced more than two centuries of her own family’s work at Davidson, from cooking, repairing, and laundering, and in later generations, where she personally served in the Admissions office for two decades. She reminded the crowd that even if archives vanish, the memories held by the families who lived this legacy are crystal clear.

One speaker, poet and alumnus Clint Smith ‘10, delivered the afternoon’s most poignant reflection on the pains of the enslaved and a reminder that the work ahead should not be purely ceremonial. “With these hands, they constructed buildings they were not allowed to enter.” The memorial, he insisted, is not the end of the story on Davidson’s reckoning with race and slavery but rather an obligation to adopt “a new way of living . . . demanding we become the place we tell the world we want to be.”

Before any of the speeches began, orchestral music floated across the lawn as people filtered in and out of the newly renovated Oak Building, now serving as a gallery dedicated to the enslaved and their descendants. Inside, guests moved slowly along the walls and exhibits.

In one photograph of campus laundry workers from the 1980s, an elderly African American woman stood with a friend, naming the faces one by one. “She’s still alive… she lives in Cornelius.” Then, almost under her breath, she murmured: “I remember this place like my home.”

When the crowd later dispersed, many retraced their steps through the Oak Building, pausing over the bricks still bearing the fingerprints of enslaved laborers. Across the lawn, the iron monument and the archive inside seemed to be in conversation with each other, with one insisting on a public, declarative remembrance, and the other focused on preserving names and evidence to give weight to that memory.

Malcolm Davis, the architect of the monument, ended his speech by imploring the audience to connect not only with the memorial but with each other:

“Davidson, we leave you with the power of this memory, the possibility of reconciliation and healing, and it is with these hands, with your hands that reach out to your fellow neighbor and reach back to those elders to understand how important and how gravitational this opportunity is.”

Event Recap Video:

Video by Pablo Quintero

On November 4, Mecklenburg County residents, including Davidson College students, will have the opportunity to vote on a proposed 1 percent increase in sales tax. The billions of dollars of revenue from that sales tax will be allocated towards improvements in roads, railways, and buses in Mecklenburg County, with priority allocation towards the Red Line Commuter Rail Project.

The Red Line Commuter Rail is a 25-mile commuter rail project that would allow individuals to travel from Davidson to Uptown Charlotte among other places. The project has been proposed, initiated, and shut down multiple times in the past, mostly due to a lack of funding. However, with Norfolk Southern finally having sold the “O-Line” tracks that run through northern Mecklenburg to the City of Charlotte, building the Red Line is now a real possibility. The next step is the passing of the sales tax referendum.

The “O-Line” runs alongside several historically Black neighborhoods in Mecklenburg County, including West Davidson. In anticipation of the sales tax referendum, there are concerns in the community about what the commuter rail project could mean for the West Davidson community.

Diane Means has been working with the Ada Jenkins Center, a local non-profit based in West Davidson, for the past 25 years and serves as Director of Impact and Engagement. Some of the concerns that Means heard in the community include the fact that the commuter line is named the Red Line.

“Many of us know the deep pain that redlining caused our African American friends...[It] was very hurtful to think that something that will potentially impact their neighborhoods again, would be called the red line,” Means said.

To this concern, the Town of Davidson Mayor Rusty Knox commented that the newly formed Metropolitan Transit Commission “has had previous discussions around changing the name of the Red Line.” The Commission might consider changing the name of the commuter rail after the November election.

According to Means, the most important concern relates to the potential spike in property values, which might raise property taxes for residents. Letha Smith, a West Davidson resident, voiced that some residents on the Lakeside have already had to pay tax increases in the past.

Tax rises disproportionately impact “historic neighborhoods that are full of people living on fixed incomes, including mostly seniors,” Means said. “This [concerns] not just West Davidson. It [includes] Smithville and Pottstown.”

David Boraks, a former independent journalist and reporter who has lived in Davidson for 32 years and has reported extensively on affordable housing in Davidson, has been following the Red Line project since it was first introduced. According to Boraks, while it is true that the Red Line will increase property prices and taxes, “to suggest that the red line is going to gentrify the west side is to ignore the fact that it’s already gentrified…Davidson’s west side has been gentrifying for 20 years.” Boraks acknowledged, though, that the Red Line might add on to the pressure that West Davidson residents already face from rising prices to sell or move out.

“Mobility is one problem,” Boraks said “but the lack of affordable housing is [another].”

According to Jason Burdette, the Planning Director at the Town of Davidson, Davidson has been a leader in Affordable Housing compared to other communities of similar size across the state. But Burdette also acknowledges that increased gentrification in the context of the Red Line is a valid concern.

“I don’t think there’s a silver bullet answer to [gentrification]…we want to make sure we can keep our longtime residents in their homes,” Burdette said “There’s a lot of resources out there that can help like the Davidson Tax Assistance program…I’m sure there will be other similar types of programs, should the problem become more acute.”

Burdette emphasized that the Red Line is eight to ten years down the road and the town is trying to forecast potential impact. But according to Boraks, “the neighborhood will already be transformed before the train gets here.”

“The average house price in Davidson, it’s over 600,000 now, and people want to live close to our walkable downtown,” Boraks said. “There are lots of gentrification pressures, even without the train.”

Tracy Mattison Brandon, the Town of Davidson Commissioner and the Campus Minister for InterVarsity, recognized concerns around the potential property tax rise as well. Brandon mentioned that if the sales tax referendum passes, the town will gain access to funding that could potentially be allocated towards a more robust tax assistance program for Davidson residents.

Brandon also brought up other concerns voiced by residents like sustainability and pollution but “the thing about the concerns [is that] they’re not going to be addressed before the [sales tax] is voted in,” she said.

According to Tonya Jameson, the Director for Civic Engagement at Leading on Opportunity, voting for the sales tax is critically important for Davidson since it will also help the express bus system, provide opportunities for small businesses and contractors, and help people move around more efficiently. Jameson calls out to Davidson students to show up and make an informed decision at the Ballot.

The question of the sales tax referendum and voting also brings up concerns over West Davidson resident engagement and awareness with the Red Line project.

Burdette hoped for more engagement and representation from West Davidson at the public information session. “We’ve tried to put information out there as much as possible, especially with the sales tax referendum,” he said “Our role is education, not advocacy. So that’s what we’ve tried to do with our website…and postcards…at various town events [directing residents where to find information].”

However, Smith believes that the real reason behind a lack of proper West Davidson representation is a lack of trust.

“When Black people get involved…you can’t help but know that it’s going to be a lot more than just going to a meeting for you and at some point in time, your life will be threatened,” Smith said. “My life has been threatened about three times seriously since I have been working.”

Smith continued,“You cannot get over it. You’re going uptown to a place that you know in the back of your head was not made for you.”

Brandon acknowledges that in the past, trust has been broken and people have not been listened to but she says this time will be different.

“The opportunities will be there for community engagement, but we can’t make people come and engage. I keep reminding them that your voice is important. If you’re invited to the table, show up.”

Boraks also emphasizes the need to rebuild trust and bring more awareness in West Davidson about residents’ options amid rising taxes and property prices, including the choice to sell or to receive tax assistance.

Even though there is ambiguity around the future of gentrification, tax rises, and the physical and environmental implications of the Red Line for West Davidson, in the following years, both engagement and trust will be paramount. Many community members agree that there needs to be consideration and intentionality behind the construction of the Red Line.

“Everybody wants progress. Nobody wants to keep driving on 77 and get stuck on it every day,” Means said. “So yes, we want transportation solutions, but can we just have them in a way that doesn’t harm people.”

Editor’s Note (Oct. 29, 2025): In a more recent interview with The Davidsonian, Mayor Rusty Knox said that the MTC will not be changing the name of the Red Line.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include a follow-up statement from YAF Chief Communications Officer Spencer Brown on behalf of attorney Madison Hahn.

On October 16, the national conservative advocacy group Young America’s Foundation (YAF) announced that its legal team had filed a federal civil rights complaint on behalf of alumnae Cynthia Huang ’25 and Hannah Fay ’25, alleging violations of Title VI, Title IX, and President Trump’s recent executive orders.

The filing was originally submitted by Huang and Fay, who first announced their complaint in The Daily Signal earlier this month. YAF’s latest article clarifies that its legal team now represents the two alumnae in pursuing the case.

Huang and Fay were leaders of the campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, a chapter of YAF, and were recently recognized by the national organization as “Rookie Chapter of the Year” for their on-campus events and unrelenting advocacy efforts. The Davidson filing is one of several civil-rights complaints YAF has filed against colleges nationwide in recent months.

The 23-page complaint requests the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to open an investigation and withhold federal funds from Davidson. It also calls for the DOE to compel Davidson to “apply appropriate remedial actions,” naming President Douglas Hicks, Director of Student Rights and Responsibilities Makenzie “Mak” Tompkins, and Director of Student Activities Emily Eisenstadt.

When The Lux asked Huang and Fay’s attorney, Madison Hahn, to clarify what “remedial actions” might entail, Hahn said the federal government could require Davidson to repay funds used “during the term of its discrimination” and compel administrators “to explain publicly why they chose discrimination over the protection of civil rights.”

The complaint raises five allegations against Davidson College. The first three invoke Title VI, claiming the college discriminated against Huang and Fay for their pro-Israel expression. Though neither student is Jewish or of Israeli descent, the complaint claims Davidson officials perceived them as part of that group because of their pro-Israel advocacy and discriminated against them on that perceived basis. YAF argues that, for the purposes of Title VI, the students were effectively treated as Jewish and thus subjected to identity-based harassment.

The final two allegations fall under Title IX, asserting that the college’s handling of a YAF Instagram post about Algerian boxer Imane Khelif—whom the post suggested was male—amounted to impermissible regulation of sex-based speech.

Allegation 1: Discrimination Against Pro-Israel Messages

The first allegation asserts that Davidson violated Title VI by permitting pro-Palestinian expression while restricting comparable pro-Israel speech, which YAF contends constitutes discrimination on the “basis of identity.”

In October 2024, YAF leaders Cynthia Huang and Hannah Fay distributed The Five Myths About Israel Perpetrated by the Pro-Hamas Left by Robert Spencer to counter what they saw as one-sided campus discourse. The pamphlet denounced the pro-Palestine movement as rooted in “Jew-hatred” and had a controversial claim that “[t]here is no such thing as a Palestinian people.”

According to YAF, soon after copies appeared around campus, the Director of College Union and Student Activities, Emily Eisenstadt, ordered Huang to stop distributing them. YAF frames this as evidence of a double standard. The filing contrasts the restriction on the Spencer pamphlet with the college’s approval of Students Against Imperialism’s materials at the January 2025 Winter Student Activities Fair. That group distributed the pamphlet “International Intifada: An Urgent Call to Participate in the Colonizer’s Execution,” which included the line, “No amount of killing of Americans, Brits, and Israelis will free us from colonial domination.”

The complaint argues that Davidson allowed the anti-Israel pamphlet without intervention while banning YAF’s pro-Israel pamphlet, and characterizes the discrepancy as discrimination on the basis of perceived identity.

Allegation 2: Harassment of Pro-Israel Students

The second allegation claims that Director of Student Rights and Responsibilities Mak Tompkins violated Title VI by “harassing, intimidating, and threatening” Cynthia Huang on the basis of her pro-Israel advocacy. The complaint characterizes Tompkins’s handling of the matter as an effort to suppress Huang’s expression under the guise of a neutral disciplinary process.

Nearly a year after the pamphlet’s distribution, Huang received a “Notice of Investigation” from Director of Student Rights and Responsibilities Mak Tompkins on February 28, 2025. The letter stated that the Dean of Students Office had received several complaints alleging that YAF’s pro-Israel pamphlets contained “misinformation that promotes Islamophobia.” It further stated that such material could violate the college’s harassment policy under the Student Code of Responsibility by creating a hostile or offensive educational environment.

Tompkins then presented Huang with two “resolution options”—a Mutual Resolution Agreement, which required accepting responsibility and an accountability plan, or a Code of Responsibility Council hearing, where a panel would determine guilt and impose sanctions. The complaint contends that these options were framed as mandatory, effectively pressuring Huang to admit fault or face a public trial.

Huang rejected both, calling the agreement “a false admission of wrongdoing” and the hearing “a kangaroo court.” She repeatedly asked Tompkins what would happen if she declined to participate. Emails cited in the complaint show that Tompkins ignored the question several times before finally acknowledging that Huang could, in fact, decline the process entirely.

Finally, Tompkins sent Huang a nondisciplinary “warning” citing Davidson’s harassment policy and noting that several students said the pamphlets “made it more difficult for them to feel safe or welcome on campus.” YAF denounces this as a de facto punishment, arguing that the warning effectively laid the groundwork for future discipline if Huang circulated similar materials again and that “censorship in and of itself is punishment.”

Allegation 3: Unequal Enforcement of Complaints

The third allegation addresses the college’s response to reported death threats. According to the complaint, when other students reported Huang after the distribution of the YAF pamphlet, Tompkins responded by initiating disciplinary action. By contrast, when Huang later reported that she had been subject to death threats as a result of the same controversy, the filing asserts that the college did not take comparable action.

The complaint further describes email correspondence between Huang and President Douglas Hicks. Initially, both parties welcomed a private in-person meeting to discuss the threats and the alleged discriminatory treatment. But the meeting never occurred after Hicks declined Huang’s request to include her mother and instead proposed that only Huang and a faculty advocate of her choice attend. As a result, the filing notes, Huang’s concerns were never presented to the president in person.

The complaint argues that the difference in administrative response supports the claim that the college’s enforcement, or non-enforcement, was dependent on the students’ pro-Israel expression rather than on consistent policy application.

Allegation 4 & 5: Censorship and Harassment Over Biological-Sex Expression

The complaint also raises a separate Title IX claim tied to the chapter’s repost of a “Libs of TikTok” post, which calls into question the gender identity of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif. It states that Tompkins notified Huang that the repost could fall under the college’s harassment policy after other students reported it as transphobic and said it made them feel unsafe.

The filing argues that this was a regulation of speech relating to biological sex and cites Executive Order 14168, which stipulates that “women are biologically female” and “men are biologically male”, to assert that such expression is protected and that investigating it went beyond what Title IX permits.

In a statement to The Lux, YAF Chief Communications Officer Spencer Brown said:

“YAF is moving swiftly to remedy Davidson College administrators’ egregious, viewpoint-discriminatory actions that turned a blind eye to calls for genocide while harassing and intimidating conservative students for offering an alternative. When students are under attack for exercising their God-given rights, YAF has their back.”

Davidson’s Response

Although not every YAF-backed complaint is escalated, this one comes at a political moment when federal agencies have shown particular eagerness to intervene in college and university affairs. The Department of Education recently announced investigations into dozens of institutions over alleged antisemitism, and the Department of Justice recently found that George Washington University “acted deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic harassment and threatened punitive action unless remedial steps are taken.

If the Office for Civil Rights were to refer this complaint to the Department of Justice, Davidson could face a full investigation and possible restrictions on federal funding allocations for future years, possibly losing $5 million in federal research grants.

In a statement to The Lux, Davidson College said:

“The complaint by the two former students is without merit. While students, they and the referenced organization received the same treatment as other student organizations, including those that took the opposing view on the Gaza conflict. Davidson takes seriously its obligation to create a non-discriminatory campus environment and we comply with federal civil rights laws, including Title VI and Title IX.”

The dinner offered the student leaders an opportunity to speak informally with the senators before the evening’s public discussion.

The senators then moved to Duke Family Performance Hall to deliver their talk. The event, organized by Dr. Chris Marsicano’s Institute for Public Good, drew a full audience with tickets selling out over a week in advance.

Klobuchar and Tillis are widely regarded as bipartisan dealmakers who bridge divides in the Senate to solve policy problems. For example, they cosponsored the creation of a VA program for veterans exposed to toxic waste on military bases.

Moderated by President Hicks, Senators Klobuchar and Tillis discussed America’s growing political radicalization, and the need for discourse, debate, and public deliberation. They also covered AI policy, disinformation on social media, and the need for strong foreign aid programs abroad.

The ongoing government shutdown loomed over the discussion. Onstage, Klobuchar called it “the elephant in the room.” Over dinner, Tillis had remarked, “Right now, Trump holds all the power.” Neither senator expressed much faith that the shutdown would be resolved soon, even as more than 750,000 federal workers are furloughed and critical agricultural funds are suspended.

Klobuchar and Tillis disagreed on their treatment of AI.

“I talk to AI every day,” Tillis said. “AI will make the smart people smarter, and the lazy people dumber.”

Klobuchar was more skeptical, recounting her battle to take down a viral deepfake, in which an AI recreation of her voice claimed that Democrats were “too fat to wear jeans or too ugly to go outside.” The senators agreed that more AI regulation is needed, but Tillis looked to private companies to set norms, while Klobuchar expressed interest in a sweeping approach which would require all AI-generated content to carry identification labels.

When the talk concluded, both senators elicited applause. Klobuchar’s proposal of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and her condemnations of the human cost of mass shootings received a long round of applause. Tillis also received warm responses for highlighting the need for continued humanitarian support to Africa.

Many political voices on campus were deeply dissatisfied by the talk, finding it self-congratulatory and lacking substance.

“It is this sort of lack of urgency from politicians in our party that is so disheartening,” said Saeran Dewar ‘28, Policy Chair of the Davidson College Democrats. “We missed the opportunity to critically engage with the senators on shutdown negotiations, Israel-Gaza, or resistance to executive overreach.”

“It was like watching a sitcom,” another attendee remarked. “It felt like Klobuchar was trying to cultivate a Mamdani-esque, TikTok-friendly image, even as she decried our obsession with likes and hit tweets.”

A few students disagreed, expressing their renewed faith in bipartisanship.

“Leaving the talk, I felt quite good,” said Oliver Genovese ‘28, president of Davidson’s Turning Point USA chapter. “It was good to have different perspectives in the room, and I liked Senator Tillis’ emphasis on the importance of immigration. While there are differences of opinion on the issue, there is a lot of common ground.”

Still, Genovese expressed disappointment in the mild rhetoric produced by Hicks’ questions, and the questions of students in attendance.

“I wish,” he said, “that one of the questions evoked a more passionate response to see how the Senators would react to a question on an issue they sharply disagree on.”

It’s possible that this provocative question was among the many left unasked. Although dozens of students raised their hands to ask the senators a question, only four students were given the chance.

“That’s not what the Institute for Public Good is all about,” a student said. “The whole event was about the desperate need for conversation across party lines, and then discussion was stopped as soon as it began.”

For many, the stakes have never been higher. The talk came at a moment of unprecedented polarization, in the wake of a recent spate of political violence, and sweeping federal actions that have reshaped debates over immigration and civil rights.

“The unsubstantive discussions this evening took place against a backdrop of masked ICE agents wreaking terror across the country, the National Guard occupying cities, and layoffs of federal workers,” Dewar said. “I find it difficult to have a more positive outlook on American politics after this.”

Last week, Lux reported on the college’s expansion of its power to access and monitor student data. This new policy explicitly expands reviewing of security cameras and CatCard records. It also opens the door to monitoring the metadata of campus communications, including subject lines and file names.

It’s not only the new T&I policy in question, as other departments have also expanded their power to identify and monitor students. “Effective immediately, all individuals—including students, staff, faculty, and visitors—are required to check in at the front desk upon entering the Residence Life Office, regardless of whether they have a scheduled appointment,” an email from the Residence Life Office read. “This procedure ensures that our team is aware of everyone in the building and can maintain a secure and respectful environment for all. It also allows us to better protect the privacy of those we serve and uphold our commitment to a safe and welcoming space.”

There have been no publicly disclosed safety incidents regarding the Residence Life Office this year.

“This is bizarre,” said Ezra Steinman, Chair of the Food and Housing Committee. “I work closely with RLO as committee chair, and they didn’t bring any concerns to me, or to the public. They added this scan-in for safety reasons, but there’s no justification as to why.”

Others drew comparisons to the new policy at all Patterson Court Council (PCC) events, which requires students to scan their CatCard to enter parties. The scan-in policy led to long lines outside events like Rusk’s “Love Island” and Warner’s “Mathletes and Athletes.” Many fear a chilling effect on the social scene at the college.

“Party scene has been mid,” a YikYak commenter wrote. “Boutta hibernate until Placement Day.”

The SGA has heard student concerns about privacy and is moving to address them with a campaign that prioritizes transparency and open discourse.

“The goal is to figure out if there is a basis behind this new surveillance,” said Harry Carter, SGA Vice-President. “And then deciding if there are changes that need to be made, and talking to the people in positions of power who can make them.”

To SGA President Connor Hines, the new policy was immediately recognizable.

“It’s all about risk management,” he said. “That’s what motivates the college, because they have a legal liability to restrict the underage consumption of alcohol.”

The new policy also was a reminder of a more restrictive time on campus.

“In the Spring semester of 2024, a majority of the 1st Armfield (“F”) apartments were closed,” he recalled. “Nearly all PCC organizations were placed on social probation. It pushed the social scene off campus on St. Patrick’s Day. A thousand people crossed Main Street, intoxicated, and just walked off campus.”

Hines was critical of the lack of communication with the student body regarding the new developments.

“I feel frustrated that students were not brought into these conversations,” Hines said. “I think it makes for a better student experience when students are consulted about changes before they’re made.”

The review and consideration period for the updated technology policy ends on October 7th, meaning that SGA has only one day left to mobilize and make student voices heard. But this is only one item in the long list of new and controversial surveillance policies.

“SGA’s quest for transparency is just beginning, but this is the first inflection point,” Steinman remarked. “If we let this pass without making our voices heard, we’re essentially giving up all student control over decision making. It’s now, or never.”

The compact could be read as a cooperative plan to improve accountability and affordability in higher education. However, critics view it as part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to increase federal influence over public and private universities and potentially liberal arts colleges like Davidson.

If these universities choose to accept the compact, they would be required to follow an extensive list of federal guidelines. These range from mandating standardized tests for all applicants to banning the use of race, gender, or sexual orientation in admissions decisions or campus life.

The compact’s own wording reinforces that impression: “Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than [the compact], if the institution elects to forego federal benefits.” Even with freedom-oriented language, the text of the agreement reads as an ultimatum, reflecting the Trump administration’s “with us or against us” approach to centers of higher education in his second term.

What remains unclear is what specific “federal benefits” the administration is offering to those who sign, or what exactly colleges would lose by refusing. Many universities will likely weigh the political and reputational costs of compliance as heavily as the financial ones. Signing could risk alienating students, faculty, alumni, and donors who disapprove of the Trump administration’s actions.

Some provisions, such as freezing tuition rates for five years and making first-semester tuition refundable, will likely appeal to students struggling with the rising cost of attending college. Others, such as capping international enrollment at 15% of the student body and requiring faculty and administrators to “abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events,” are likely to spark greater controversy.

The mixed response reflects this tension and extends the debate beyond college campuses. According to a recent New York Times/Siena poll, 49% of registered voters believe that President Trump has “gone too far” in “pressuring colleges and universities to adopt new policies”. Yet, this issue also drew the highest percentage of respondents who say he has “not gone far enough”.

So far, only one institution, the University of Texas at Austin, has publicly supported the compact and announced plans to sign. The remaining eight have responded cautiously, saying only that they are reviewing the terms.

It’s not entirely clear why these particular universities were chosen. They include a mix of public and private schools with few obvious similarities, suggesting the administration may be testing this model on a small group before expanding it to others.

Davidson College has already felt the effects of the administration’s broader higher-education agenda. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July, the endowment tax on colleges like Davidson will increase from 1.4% to 7% starting in 2026, a change that President Doug Hicks projects will cost the college millions of dollars more per year. President Hicks told the Raleigh News & Observer in May that such a hike would “create serious pressure on our financial aid budget and our ability to be need-blind, to meet 100% of demonstrated need for all students, and to do so without loans.”

However, Davidson ultimately avoided the increase thanks to a late-stage provision exempting institutions with fewer than 3,000 students. That enrollment-based carve-out shielded small liberal-arts institutions like Davidson from the new tax, even as larger peers such as Duke, Harvard, and Princeton remain subject to it.

For now, Davidson has not been invited to join the “Compact for Academic Excellence,” nor has it faced any federal pressure to alter its admissions policies or curriculum. But given the college’s Presbyterian designation, it remains possible that future federal initiatives, particularly tied to the administration’s recent efforts to promote religious tradition in America, could place expectations and requirements on faith-affiliated institutions like Davidson.

North Carolina’s status as a perennial swing state and its role as a political battleground in recent elections could also bring increased attention, and possibly more scrutiny, to Davidson as the state’s leading liberal arts college.

Following the August light-rail stabbing in Charlotte, the Department of Justice has singled out the Charlotte metro area as evidence of what it calls “weak-on-crime” urban policies. That heightened federal focus on Mecklenburg County could easily extend northward to Davidson, especially as the college gains visibility after being ranked the best college in the South and the tenth best in the country by The Wall Street Journal. The same distinction that attracts new students and national prestige may also draw sharper federal attention in a politically charged climate.

Davidson also retained its standing as the No. 2 liberal arts college, only losing out to Claremont McKenna.

Regionally, a notable shift elevated Davidson to the top of the South. Georgia Tech, last year’s No. 9, fell out of the top ten entirely, making Davidson the highest-ranked college in the region.

The Methodology

Unlike rankings such as U.S. News and Niche, the WSJ ranks universities and liberal arts colleges together, meaning that Davidson competes directly with large research institutions like Harvard and UCLA.

WSJ’s formula emphasizes student outcomes, including salary impact, graduation success, and the estimated years to pay off net price, which together make up 70% of the overall score. The remaining 30% reflects learning environment (20%) and diversity (10%).

How Davidson moved

Although Davidson held its place at No. 10, its overall score rose. Despite the WSJ’s heavy emphasis on outcomes, Davidson’s scores in graduation rates and salary impact stayed the same. The improvement instead came from stronger survey results in learning environment and an improved diversity rating.

Drawing from survey responses of about 120,000 students and alumni across institutions, the WSJ found Davidson scoring higher in learning opportunities, career preparation, facilities, and overall student satisfaction.

Davidson’s diversity rating also improved, a measure that reflects ethnic composition, the share of Pell Grant recipients, and the representation of students with disabilities on campus.

For Davidson, the new WSJ list reinforces its place among the nation’s top colleges and highlights its position as the South’s leader. Holding steady in the top ten while competing directly with much larger universities, the college continues to draw national recognition.

The 2025 draft expands the 2018 policy, which only applied to “employees and others,” and restricted inspections to malware checks and departing staff transfers. The new policy explicitly extends to student data, authorizing inspections of any data produced through college-provided platforms, including emails and documents. It also expands these inspections to include reviews of campus security cameras and CatCard records, and opens the door to metadata monitoring such as subject lines and file names.

Under this new policy, inspections generally require approval from four senior administrators: the Chief Human Resources Officer (for employees) or Vice President of Student Life (for students), the Chief Information Officer, the General Counsel, and the appropriate vice president or division head.

But in the case of a cyberattack, only two administrators are needed for an inspection. This is likely in response to last year’s major cyberattack against third-party service Drivestream, which exposed personally identifiable information for some Davidson students and employees.

The policy does not clarify what situations fall outside of general procedures. Some students worry this ambiguity may lead to overreach.

“Systems such as blockchains show us that security doesn't have to come at the price of transparency,” said Jackson Sichelstiel, co-president of the Davidson Blockchain Club. “If the college wants to adopt stronger monitoring powers, it should also adopt stronger safeguards to ensure those powers aren't misused.”

“Innovation and open dialogue thrive best when people feel secure in their communications,”

Sichelstiel continued, “not when worrying that conversations could be inspected without clear justification.”

In the absence of disclosure, some students now assume that they are being watched at all times.

“I hate that T&I can constantly scrape the data on who I work with and where I go,” said one student, who preferred to remain anonymous. “Even if they don’t actually do it, why is that fair play?”

In response to criticism, T&I defended the changes:

“Categorically, the most common reasons policies and processes like these are invoked at institutions like Davidson are to comply with legal or law enforcement obligations, employee disciplinary matters, or circumstances involving life safety.”

Unless students raise concerns during the short comment window, the policy will go live October 7.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated on October 2, 2025 to include a comment from T&I, which was received after initial publication.

FIRE, an organization dedicated to promoting free speech on college campuses, has taken a wide range of cases. In the early 2010s, FIRE opposed campus political correctness. Today, the group has drawn criticism from the Trump administration for defending noncitizen students with pro-Palestinian views.

FIRE’s rankings included over 257 U.S. colleges and universities, with more than 68,000 students surveyed. They found that the environment for free speech at Davidson scored only 60.40 out of 100, for a grade of D-minus.

While Davidson scored relatively high on measures like “[institutional] openness” at 51 out of 257, the college received a grim 198 out of 257 on the metric “comfort expressing ideas.”

The Davidson Lux interviewed students to find out who exactly felt uncomfortable expressing their ideas on campus. The results were surprising.

“When the college democratic socialists started posting on YikYak, the comments were genuinely insane,” said one student, who preferred to remain anonymous.“There were people saying we were evil, people saying they’d start a national socialism club to balance it out. The tone is just so polarized. There’s no room to talk.”

The Davidson Lux also spoke with Kiera Sanders ‘28, the leader of Students against Imperialism, a collective which seeks to “challenge U.S. economic, militaristic, and cultural hegemony.”

“There is definitely opposition to our voices on campus,” she said. “I can’t say what I believe in around everyone. I feel like I’d get a lot of flak for that, not just because of what I’m saying, but because I’m the one saying it.”

“We’re facing hate,” another anonymous student concluded. “It feels like there’s no place for our ideas.”

Davidson’s formal institutions have also been the source of free speech controversy. Last spring, FIRE sent a letter to President Doug Hicks ‘90 arguing that the college had overstepped its boundaries in pursuing disciplinary sanctions against Davidson’s Young America’s Foundation (YAF) chapter.

YAF is a conservative campus organization which provides external funding to college students in support of conservative causes.

“Our intent was simply to share the truth,” said Cynthia Huang ‘25, former president of Davidson’s YAF chapter. “Davidson and mainstream media prioritizes indoctrination over education, so we wanted to distribute factual information.”

Disciplinary sanctions were brought against Davidson’s YAF chapter for distributing a pamphlet deemed islamophobic, which included statements like “MYTH: Israel Is Occupying Palestinian Land.” The pamphlet remains in full circulation on Google.

While the pamphlet remains deeply divisive, it does not fall under the “historic and traditional categories” of unprotected speech as defined by United States v. Stevens.

In the end, the disciplinary sanctions were never finalized.

“They withdrew their charges, once we went to the press,” Huang explained. “At the end of the day, Davidson only cares about money. I speculate that once they knew that pressing charges would tarnish their public reputation (and upset some [of] their alumni donors), they chose to back down.”

Still, FIRE sees an institution which has crossed the line and chilled speech on campus.

“Davidson is obliged to prevent discriminatory harassment,” FIRE conceded, “but in doing so it must not sacrifice its duty to protect free speech. Even an investigation into obviously protected expression is likely to chill student speech—including when the process ultimately concludes in favor of the speaker—because such a process implicitly threatens punishment for that speech.”

In the wake of the killing of Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University, speech in colleges and universities is more polarized and restricted than ever. From the Oval Office to Davidson’s institutions and on the student body level, it appears that Davidson is no exception.

“If you’re going to silence one voice, you have the ability to silence everyone,” Kiera Sanders said. “That’s why we fight for free speech; we just have to. Nobody but us has the right to tell us what we can and cannot say.”

“I've always given take-home reviews. I like take-home reviews. I think students learn more.… when I read and write about a text, I want to look at the pages. I want time to think about it. And I want to give students the same opportunities.”

That tradition ended last year, after Shaw encountered more instances of plagiarism than he had during the “previous two decades.” Instead of take-home reviews, Shaw now ruefully offers only in-class essays in his survey courses.

This trend of professors foregoing take-home exams and papers is not a new phenomenon. As the Davidsonian reported last year, many professors began adopting in-class tests, the Exam Center, and LockDown Browser software. Driven by concerns over cheating and doubts about the Honor Code’s effectiveness, many professors opted for measures designed to prevent misconduct altogether.

Students noticed the shift in faculty confidence. “It was my first class of freshman fall,” recalled Riley Light ’28. “And one of the first things [my professor] told us was that the honor code is dead.”

Former Honor Council Solicitor Daniel Presa ’25 offered a different view. Between Winter Break and the end of Spring 2025 semester alone, he handled what he estimated to be around 40 cases. While that marked an increase, Presa attributed it not to more cheating but to “professors being more willing to report cases because of increased trust.”

By meeting more often with faculty and openly explaining the rationale behind case outcomes, Presa said, the Honor Council increased transparency about its procedures and strengthened faculty trust.

However, Presa admitted that many professors remain skeptical, bypassing the Honor Council and handling violations internally. He noted that these professors tended to see the Council as either “too heavy-handed” or “too lenient” in its outcomes.

Addressing the latter opinion, Presa argued that the Honor Council is “built on the restorative justice principle,” with the primary goal of “restoration into the community” rather than punishment. As a result, Presa explained, the Council no longer begins by “advocat[ing] for suspension or expulsion” with the hope that the student can “re-enter the community in an accountable way.”

Christopher Marsicano ’10, a current professor and former Honor Council Representative, agreed with Presa that restorative justice is important but disagreed with his hesitation to use suspensions. He argued that time away from campus can “actually be incredibly restorative.”

Drawing on his experience on the Honor Council, Marsicano noticed that most students appear before the Council “because something has gone horribly wrong in their life.” Family emergency or mental health struggles, he said, often pushed students “behind on work” and into cheating. For Marsicano, suspension is not punishment but a chance for reform. “It can be incredibly centering and reflective so that they can come back to college and thrive where in six months prior they were just barely surviving.”

Debates over sanctions have broadened into a larger question: whether the Honor Code and the Council that enforces it still carry the trust of the community. Honor Council Chair Maggie Woodward ’26 acknowledged the doubts but insisted they reflect “a misunderstanding of what the Council does.” She emphasized the current leadership has focused on transparency by creating a committee to review internal practices and expanding outreach to students and faculty so that neither the Code nor the Council remain a “black box.”

For Marsicano, more data is essential. He highlighted the lack of publicly available statistics on Honor Council sanctions and cautioned that much of the debate relies on “vibes and anecdotal information.” With a forthcoming campus-wide survey of students and faculty—focused on attitudes toward the Honor Code—Marsicano hopes the Davidson community will gain a clearer understanding of the Honor Code and engage with it more actively.

The Society stopped programming during the COVID-19 pandemic, when in-person gatherings weren’t possible. It wasn’t until this summer that David Boraks, Rachel Workman, and other members of the board met regularly to rebuild the Historical Society. Membership has already grown to around 40, with organizers encouraging residents to join, volunteer, or donate.

The first event will be on Sunday, September 28^th, with a history talk and tour of the historic Sloan house, located at 230 South Main Street. Led by Workman, the program will highlight the home’s turn-of-the-century architecture and the story of the Sloan family.

In October, the society will be hosting a panel discussion on Race and Slavery at Davidson College. The panel will explore how the college is commemorating its past, including a new public art memorial by Hank Willis Thomas titled With These Hands, the renovation of the historic Oak Row building as a museum, and research into Beaver Dam, a former plantation house. Boraks will moderate alongside Davidson College history professor Hilary Green and Martha Gimson, the college’s historic sites and program manager.

The final event in November will return to campus as Workman leads a tour of the Davidson College Cemetery, which dates back to 1838.

For Boraks, the Society’s revival underscores the group’s broader mission. “The purpose of the Historical Society is to help celebrate the history of the town and promote an understanding of it,” he said. “That includes strengthening ties with Davidson College. The history of the town and the college are inextricably linked, so it makes sense for us to work together in whatever ways make that happen”

When asked why students and residents should care about Davidson’s history, Boraks replied, “I really feel like it’s important for people to understand the place that they live in. That includes what’s going on today, but it also includes where we came from.”

As the Historical Society reclaims its place in the community, its fall lineup promises a deeper understanding of Davidson’s history and an invitation for residents to take part in preserving it. As Boraks puts it, "There are many stories, a lot of which have not yet been uncovered. And part of the fun is helping to bring some of that out.”

Learn more about the Davidson Historical Society here.