Davidson’s Ukraine Flag and The Question of Responsible College Reactions To Politics


By Stephen Walker '26

February 9, 2024


         The war in Ukraine had become a permanent story by the time I arrived at Davidson. Everyone knew about it and saw the same viral stories from time to time. There was an expert on the situation who came to campus to speak last semester, but that was an academic event and the issue as a whole has largely failed to deeply penetrate campus culture these last two years. Over this period, right beneath the American flag on Davidson’s flag pole flew the yellow and blue Ukrainian flag, an unwavering symbol of support for the far-away country. As I returned this semester I found the flag had vanished. No statement had been put out. No reason for the disappearance was made apparent to anybody. The stars and stripes fly alone again.


          The problem I see with an institution like Davidson making statements as clear as flying another country's flag with our own is twofold. Davidson is a place dedicated to courageous intellectual inquiry meant to prepare students for lives of substance. But when the school leaves this symbol of clear support for a faraway war waged in an environment much different from our homeland, it sends a message to students about what types of opinions are acceptable and what types are not. Rather than allowing students to engage in research and dialogue with one another to uncover the truth about the matter, they are told by this symbolic gesture to conform to the whims of those favoring war. Whims that many believe don’t seem to benefit either us or this faraway nation at all and which don’t reflect the conflicted public opinion of the voters who grant our leaders their power. There is also the question of respect. It is standard for flags of different nations to be flown on different poles. Clumping these nations together demonstrates a blatant disregard for the tradition of respecting the sanctity of our flag and the sovereignty of the flag of another nation whose flag flies below ours. This message of disrespect for our own traditions and disregard for the complexity of international conflict is not one which allows students to better prepare for lives of “leadership and service.” This stunt set the tone for blind acceptance of authority and an embodiment of the values of the hive mind rather than encouragement for students to form unique, nuanced opinions.


 Could this flag have come down sooner should students have questioned the motives of the institution? Should they defy a clear symbol of authority in their lives? No one wanted to find out what that would lead to and all resorted to the silence which has become a standard response in times of political uncertainty. When Davidson takes clear political stances it makes students uncomfortable with asking tough questions and having uncomfortable but important conversations. No one knows why the flag came down, and the problem the stunt posed will likely never be addressed and the message it implanted in the minds of those it affected will never be undone.


 Going forward, will other flags be put up? Last semester, students raised flags and other symbols of support for Palestine. They were all taken down almost immediately. What about a Trump, Biden, or Kennedy flag? I doubt any of those would make it that long. When the college makes political statements with its flagpole it's acceptable. When students make political statements meant to stimulate conversation it’s not. In the future instances of students following the school’s example, will Davidson invoke its vague exceptions clause to allowed speech and expression which outlaws all things deemed to be “otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the College ''? It would be a clear double standard should the college be allowed to make and retract extremely public and symbolically significant political statements while students get silenced for following its lead. I was disappointed they put the flag up in the first place, but even more so when it went down in the quiet of December break without a hint of acknowledgement from anybody. 



Stephen Walker is a class of 2026 Political Science and English Double Major at Davidson College.



April 30, 2026
By James Freeman The Wallstreet Journal April 16, 2026 Hugo Chiasson and Elise Spenner report for the Harvard Crimson: Harvard is quietly asking donors for $10 million gifts to establish new endowed professorships in a sweeping bid to reshape its faculty under the banner of “viewpoint diversity,” according to two people familiar with the initiative. The campaign, driven by Harvard’s top brass, aims to raise several hundred million dollars to support a new cohort of professors. If successful, the funding could bring dozens of faculty members to campus and drastically shift Harvard’s academic makeup. University officials have pitched the effort to major donors — conservative and liberal alike — as a way to broaden ideological representation across Harvard, two people said. But the fundraising target has repeatedly shifted after pushback from donors who viewed the scale as too ambitious, one person said. Maybe it’s not ambitious enough. Duke professor Timur Kuran responds on X: This is one way to increase viewpoint diversity, but the heterodox thinkers to be hired would lack meaningful power on campus. Activist, woke departments would treat the heterodox thinkers as freaks, perhaps also as archenemies. Through its new Hamilton School, the U of Florida offers a more promising way: establishing competing departments that are not woke. Under UF’s reform, students get to choose courses from either side: the old woke departments and their un-woke alternatives. Advantages: 1) Heterodox thinkers are not marginalized. 2) Competition for students induces woke departments to shape up. To survive, the preexisting activist departments start putting more emphasis on scholarship and on improving their courses. Harvard’s path offers neither advantage. There’s an argument for simply shutting down the activist departments that are dedicated to dogma, rather than hiring people to counter them. There is also another path that might be the most serious and effective of all to reform such a university. Harvard could decide not to make any structural changes at all, and also to avoid asking for an expansion of resources, lest alumni suspect they are just getting run over by a new fundraising vehicle. Harvard could simply reallocate resources by annually firing the most ideological 10% of its faculty members and 20% of its administrators. Theoretically it might seem difficult to make subjective judgments on which of the staff are egregious in pushing personal political agendas. But in practice many academics have grown so comfortable making strident anti-intellectual pronouncements that the only challenge would likely arise when trying to limit the administrative cull to 20%. Step two of this plan for Harvard is to hire new faculty who are so curious and whose scholarship is so serious and unpredictable that no one can ascertain their political beliefs. After a few years people might be amazed at the improvement in campus culture, and at the sheer number of scholars who seem to delight in pursuing knowledge wherever it leads. Veritas! *** In Other News  Another Opportunity for Harvard to Enhance Viewpoint Diversity? Frank Newport and Lydia Saad report for Gallup: Driven by a recent increase, young men in the U.S. have now surpassed young women in saying religion is “very important” in their lives. Gallup’s latest data, from 2024-2025, show 42% of young men saying religion is very important to them, up sharply from 28% in 2022-2023. By contrast, during this period, young women’s attachment to religion has held steady at about 30%. Although young men had previously tied young women on this key marker of religiosity, young men now lead by a statistically significant margin. The recent increase among young men also contrasts with minimal changes since 2022-2023 among older men and women… Young women were significantly more attached to religion than young men were at the start of the millennium, leading by nine percentage points (52% vs. 43%) in calling religion “very important” in their lives. That gap widened to as much as 16 points in the early to mid-2000s before steadily narrowing over the next decade. By the mid-2010s, the difference had shrunk to about five points, and the two groups remained about this closely aligned through 2022-2023. The most recent data mark a clear break, with young men now surpassing young women on this measure of religious importance. In a possibly related story, the American Founding website notes a letter from Harvard alum John Adams to his patriotic pal Mercy Warren 250 years ago: I know of no Researches in any of the sciences more ingenious than those which have been made after the best Forms of Government nor can there be a more agreeable Employment to a benevolent Heart. The Time is now approaching, when the Colonies will find themselves under a Necessity of engaging in Earnest in this great and indispensable Work. I have ever Thought it the most difficult and dangerous Part of the Business Americans have to do, in this mighty Contest, to continue some Method for the Colonies to glide insensibly, from under the old Government, into a peaceable and contented Submission to new ones. It is a long Time since this opinion was conceived, and it has never been out of my Mind, my constant Endeavour has been to convince Gentlemen of the Necessity of turning their Thoughts to these Subjects… The Form of Government, which you admire, when its Principles are pure is admirable indeed. It is productive of everything, which is great and excellent among Men. But its Principles are as easily destroyed, as human Nature is corrupted. Such a Government is only to be supported by pure Religion, or Austere Morals. Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be superior to all private Passions…. Is there in the World a Nation, which deserves this Character. There have been several, but they are no more. Our dear Americans perhaps have as much of it as any Nation now existing, and New England perhaps has more than the rest of America. But I have seen all along my Life, Such Selfishness, and Littleness even in New England, that I sometimes tremble to think that, although We are engaged in the best Cause that ever employed the Human Heart, yet the Prospect of success is doubtful not for Want of Power or of Wisdom, but of Virtue. *** James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”
March 30, 2026
At Davidson College, just 3% of faculty fall into a political minority, highlighting a clear imbalance. 
January 27, 2026
By Abigail S. Gerstein and Amann S. Mahajan, Crimson Staff Writers The Harvard Crimson January 27, 2026 Harvard faculty awarded significantly fewer A grades in the fall, cutting the share of top marks by nearly seven percentage points after the College urged instructors to combat grade inflation, according to a Monday afternoon email obtained by The Crimson. The email, which was addressed to Faculty of Arts and Sciences instructors and sent by Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh, reported that the share of flat As fell from 60.2 percent in the 2024-2025 academic year to 53.4 percent in the fall. The decline follows a 25-page report Claybaugh released in October 2025 arguing that grade inflation had rendered the College’s grading system unable to “perform the key functions of grading” and encouraging stricter academic measures, including standardized grading across sections and in-person final exams. Continue Reading
Show More