By: ELISA TURNER

Yes, you. Yes, your major. Even the majors we thought were safe. 

Even the STEM majors, who were pinkie promised job security in a world that increasingly values science.

Even the business and/or marketing majors who were naturally expected to thrive under capitalism.

And of course the arts, humanities, and education majors. The degree you and your parents started saving money for way back in the second grade, when you took all your money out of your piggy bank and put it into a compound interest savings account under the rhetoric that it was all for your future, is now under attack by the current administration.

It’s not news by now that the Trump administration slashed funding for scientific grants. With federal grants pulled back from research, studies become increasingly dependent upon private funding, which can and has in the past been used to promote biased studies for the funder’s agenda. For example, in 2004 the Coca Cola company funded research under the Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness specifically to overshadow the well-known health risks of excess sugar in beverages with misleading factoids about “hydration” and “energy balance” benefits of sugary drinks. Federal funding exists largely to combat the biases that find their way into much of private funding, where donors can threaten to withhold money in order to sway the outcome of any piece of research. Scientific advancement being held to the almighty dollar is already a reality scientists struggle with— now that almighty dollar must come from a biased government administration hesitant to give any money at all, or from a private investor who can pull money like puppet strings to manufacture the outcome they desire.

Business and marketing have, historically, been somewhat solid options as majors. But businesses heavily rely on an ability to advertise and promote whatever good or service they provide. When DEI initiatives are shunned and shamed by the presidential administration, advertising gets worse. Stay with me now. It’s relatively basic logic that an ad should generally be inoffensive and lighthearted so as to not alienate its audience— there are some examples of ads that understand this rule and break it in order to do something original, such as Liquid Death, but these exceptions still do follow the rule of abruptly captivating and eventually endearing its audience. But generally, there should be no possible way for an ad to be construed as offensive to an entire demographic; there are often entire departments dedicated to ensuring that never happens.

So why did American Eagle, a legacy company rivalled by few, ever allow that Sydney Sweeney ad to run?

To be fair, this article isn’t about whether or not that American Eagle ad was white supremacist propaganda. I bring it up because it’s relevant— if you’re a company as large as American Eagle, you are supposed to ensure that there is absolutely no way your promotional material could be construed as anything related to white supremacy. And if we can bring ourselves to presume slip of mind over malice for a moment, it’s not surprising that a room full of white marketing executives who appear over the age of 40 (this is not a broad assumption, take a look at the AE executive board) would be tone deaf to the perceived underlying meanings of that highly controversial ad. DEI initiatives exist to ensure that minority groups have a voice in content that has potential to be seen by every person in this country— to take that away is to allow for a narrower range of perspectives, often distorted through the same white lens, to create what they believe would appeal across demographics. And if the AE Sydney Sweeney ad is any indicator, it ain’t fucking working. Something that was meant to have a sexual edge as a selling point instead came across as something you might see on a mediocre episode of Impractical Jokers.

On the topic of things that got slashed, many of us have heard that the Trump administration defunded PBS in favor of a PragerU partnership. For those that don’t know, PragerU is the institution responsible for a handful of famously bad takes on history, including but not limited to the rationalization of Columbus’ enslavement of the native americans, and the blatant misrepresentation of Frederick Douglass as some guy who was totally chill with a “compromise” between ending slavery and not ending slavery, as well as depicting his relationship with Willian Lloyd Garrison as an enemyship rather than a disagreement over methods— a conflict under which innovation bloomed. 

How does this relate to any college major? Those planning to major in education may be affected by the integration of PragerU into public schools. Oklahoma will soon require its public school teachers to pass a PragerU test that is essentially conservative circlejerk trivia to be used in the hiring process. While PragerU’s inability to exercise an ounce of subtlety could make this test easy enough for just about anyone to click through, it still sets a concerning precedent. Why in the fuck would the US government blatantly slip its money to an organization so obviously biased toward one party, when the government in question hosts a minimum of two parties within its political sphere? Why inject it specifically into the hiring of educators? Why reinforce the retelling of history through its victors, in favor of smothering the other perspectives we have just recently integrated into learning, as history and comprehensive education ought to do?

I almost don’t even have to mention arts and humanities majors, but I will anyway. Trump’s censorship of the Smithsonian museum sets a concerning precedent for the future of the arts. The creation of art is almost always swayed by the political context in which it exists, and it is often critical of that time. The arts have always been said to have questionable job security post-graduation, and redacting the core elements of what makes art so culturally significant, so worthy of legacy, and above all, so intricately human— it sure as hell doesn’t make that situation any better. Additionally, UChicago has frozen PhD admissions of their humanities programs in response to Trump’s funding cuts. UChicago’s status as a T10 school grants it the power to set precedents for not only other schools of its ilk, but also institutions below it. If other schools follow in its footsteps, we might face a bottleneck crisis of the humanities as a whole.

From biology to business, money has been cut from whatever initiative might have a fighting chance of improving any company— be that research material or workplace/demographic inclusivity. Your major doesn’t matter because the current administration is content to keep us in the throes of mediocrity, in favor of tossing money towards US oil reserves and a primarily online institution that wants to weasel its way into education despite not being an accredited university while still tagging that U at the end of their name just ‘cuz it’s real nice to look at.

Featured Image: chapelboro.com