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.

Challenging One-Sided Discourse and A Call for Academic Integrity

15 May, 2024
Annie Hirshman '24 May 15, 2024 Last year, I took a Political Science course with a certain professor. This was not uncommon for me, as I am a Political Science major. However, for students of different majors, this particular course was required in order to obtain a liberal arts degree from Davidson College. Therefore, this class serves as a lot of students' sole exposure to the political science department. I was in the classroom with a variety of individuals, ranging from the Phi Delt jocks to the studio art majors. This classroom had everything and everyone. Since this was the first time a lot of them had taken a political science course, the dialogue and discourse was somewhat quieter. Therefore, I felt encouraged to speak up in class. I participated often, sharing my opinion on daily issues and historical events that had shaped American politics. I hoped that my voice would encourage others to participate. Sharing my opinion took a turn for the worse on a certain Wednesday morning. As the semester progressed, I noticed that the teacher was only sharing liberal skewed media sources. When they would discuss conservative matters, it had a negative connotation. They often referred to Republican politicians as a whole using derogatory terms, almost asserting that one bad apple was synonymous with the bunch. I discussed what occurred within the classroom numerous times outside, especially with my classmates that were rather conservative. They spoke of how they felt alienated in class, frightened at the outcome if they were to share their opinion. As a natural-born extrovert and rather excited by the idea of questioning the professor, I spoke up. I asked them why they chose to share only liberal-based news sources and strayed from conservative outlets in their journalistic sources. Their answer was short and sweet: because they were the only accurate sources to garner information from. I was shocked and severely taken aback by their statement. Later that day, the professor followed up with an email ‘defending’ their position. Without their intent, they confirmed that they do not “explicitly seek to include conservative outlets”. They spoke of how there was an ongoing movement to tar outlets that were not relatively conservative. They continued that accurate news sources were under attack for liberal alignment when in reality (their opinion), they were honest and true. The professor asserted that Republican politicians were guilty of executive aggrandizement for these efforts. In addition, they asserted that sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have been shown to have a very limited liberal bias, if any. As someone who seeks to challenge my own and other’s beliefs, I did some research to see if these statements were accurate or not. I checked multiple sources to see which sources were actually ideologically skewed. The Allsides Media Bias Chart, which collects its information based upon multi-partisan scientific analysis, including expert panels and surveys of thousands of everyday Americans, provided convincing material. It asserted that the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post all skew left to the same extent that The Wall Street Journal skewed right. In addition, I analyzed the Ad Fontes Chart. In order to analyze their data and rate their sources, their methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist analysts. All analysts must hold a bachelor’s degree, while most hold a graduate degree and about one-third have obtained a doctoral degree. It argues that the Wall Street Journal is on the “skews right” section while the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN are on the “skews left” section. The fact that Davidson supports a professor that only teaches one side is sad but not shocking. This is an ongoing issue at this college. I know for a fact that I am not the sole student who feels this way. Teachers are supposed to teach us how to think, not what to think. Through supporting professors that promote a one-sided discourse, that statement is contradicted daily. Considering that the college routinely refers to the “Davidson Experience” in a positive way, I can’t believe that this is what they have in mind. At the end of the day, solely teaching one side is indoctrination. Davidson, coming from a student who admires and cherishes you, please do better so future generations of students feel both free and encouraged to speak their mind, even if it is different than the majority. Annie Hirshman is a 2024 Graduate of Davidson College with a degree in Political Science.

Why I Ended the University of Chicago Protest Encampment

07 May, 2024
Students demanded that we side against Israel, violating the core principle of institutional neutrality.

The Adults Are Still in Charge at the University of Florida

03 May, 2024
Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.
Show More
Share by: