Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this editorial do not represent the Minnesota Daily’s newsroom and are not necessarily representative of any individual on the Opinions Desk. This piece has been agreed upon for publication by a majority vote of all members of the Daily’s Opinions Desk.

It’s safe to say college students are not the most financially stable demographic in the United States.

Four-year universities are expensive, and more than half of undergraduates take out student loans to pay for their education.

The University of Minnesota is no exception, with the estimated cost of attendance ranging from upwards of $28,000 for in-state students to about $60,000 for non-resident students. 

While students try their best to cover these costs, part-time jobs, budgeting and cabinets full of instant noodles only go so far. As such, it is important to support students as much as possible.

Yet, students now face increased financial pressure after the University Board of Regents approved a new budget increasing in-state undergraduate and graduate tuition by 6.5% for the Twin Cities and Rochester campuses and nonresident tuition by 7.5%. The budget also includes a 7% cut to various academic programs and operating costs.

The University is one of many educational institutions facing growing pressure from the Trump administration on multiple fronts, from National Institutes of Health research funding cuts to investigations over alleged antisemitism and scholarship awards. 

However, federal funding and grant cuts have proven to be the most impactful so far, leaving the University scrambling to deal with financial shortfalls.

In a system-wide letter to faculty and staff, University President Rebecca Cunningham thanked those willing to adapt to the University’s budget needs and addressed the federal funding fallouts that put the University’s budget in jeopardy.

“We have experienced significant cuts in federal research funding, and there is ongoing uncertainty in the future of federal funding and international student enrollment,” Cunningham said in the letter. “Inside the University, some have seen their employment end as a result of cuts in federal funding.”While the tuition hikes may be understandable in the face of millions of dollars in lost federal funding, the University’s decision is difficult to justify to students who now face a price increase from the public university with the highest sticker price in the state.

Executive Vice President for Finance and Operations and Chief Financial Officer Gregg Goldman acknowledged the extent of the tuition hikes in a message sent to University colleagues but emphasized the University’s educational value and the comparatively average price among similar universities.

“The proposed tuition increase exceeds the rate of inflation, higher than it’s been in recent years,” Goldman said in the message. “However, the Twin Cities campus ranks 7th out of 18 in resident tuition cost among our Big 10 peers and we expect that position to remain stable or shift by no more than one spot.”

Despite the reasoning for it, University students face a tougher future ahead as the tuition hikes put much of the weight of the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education squarely on students’ shoulders. At the same time, financial resources that students can turn to are increasingly under threat. 

The One Big Beautiful Bill, recently signed into law, included provisions eliminating numerous student loan repayment programs, limiting student loan borrowing and imposing further restrictions on Pell Grant eligibility. These Trump administration policies threaten to make college unaffordable for students across the country.

These federal policy changes are compounded with at-home tuition hikes and program cuts, forcing University students to bear the brunt of the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education. 

Fourth-year student and USG’s executive director of government and legislative affairs, Shae Horning, said the ripple effect from the University’s largest tuition hike in years will be felt across students’ lives.

“It’s definitely going to make a big impact,” Horning said. “Not only just because tuition is going to cost more, but because of the effect that that has on students’ ability to live near campus or afford groceries.”

The lack of transparency surrounding the approved 7% cut to various programs is also a cause for concern.

While the tuition hikes will overshadow funding cuts in students’ minds, it’s hard to predict the effects these cuts will have on students, according to Horning.

“Any way that faculty and staff aren’t supported is also going to impact us as students,” Horning said. “We’re all in this together, we’re all feeling these negative impacts.”

Students already struggling to make up for increased tuition now face the uncertainty of whether funding critical to their scholastic plan will be under further threat, no matter where cuts are made. 

This additional layer of suspense leaves the reliability of scholarship funding up in the air, as University student aid packages aren’t released until late July.

Horning said USG is working to navigate new policy changes and students’ recent distrust in the University administration to keep students aware and involved.

“Our goal for the past academic year, and I know it’ll continue into this one, is just making students aware of everything that’s going on,” Horning said. “Last year, we had our tuition freeze campaign, and we’re planning to keep up that momentum into this year just so students know we’re here to support them and that it doesn’t have to be this way.”

We will find a way through this because we have few other options. 

Federal cuts to higher education hurt universities and students alike, but the University’s new budget is certain to make financing the upcoming academic year significantly more daunting for students facing increased tuition and decreased support.

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this editorial do not represent the Minnesota Daily’s newsroom and are not necessarily representative of any individual on the Opinions Desk. This piece has been agreed upon for publication by a majority vote of all members of the Daily’s Opinions Desk.

In the era of political firebrands like President Donald Trump, it is difficult not to conclude that political violence is becoming normal. 

Many of us grew up watching political leaders lean into partisan narratives and personal insults, deepening the divide that pits citizens against each other. 

This divide came to a head in Minnesota with the fatal shooting of former Democratic state House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the shooting of Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, on June 14. 

These events, as well as the subsequent manhunt, shocked people across the nation, especially in Minnesota.

Tim Collins, a political science lecturer at the University of Minnesota, said outside of some demonstrations and unrest, Minnesota doesn’t have much of a history of political violence.

“We’ve had this reputation for ‘Minnesota Nice,’” Collins said. “Until this year, even, our legislature was a lot more collegial and nice, and there was some genuine bipartisanship that you don’t see a lot in state politics.”

Students in Collins’ political psychology course said they were shocked, sickened and in disbelief upon hearing the news of the attacks and Hortman’s death. 

Following the shootings, the question news organizations, politicians and citizens alike jumped to ask was which party the suspected shooter, Vance Boelter, 57, belonged to. 

Students in Collins’ class said they believed many people are desensitized to the fact that two people lost their lives in the attacks and jumped to politics instead of realizing the impact political violence has on both people and our society.

Political assassination should not be an act we can quickly attribute to any political party, regardless of polarization.  

Still, along with the speculation about Boelter’s political affiliation, some in the political sphere saw the attacks as an opportunity to confront political opponents. 

Olivia Hanson, a fourth-year student at the University, said in response to a Minnesota Daily opinions poll that Minnesota and the U.S. are taking on an increasingly dystopian feel.  

“The current administration is perpetrating so much hate that I’m afraid political violence will become a new normal,” Hanson said. “Not to mention the desensitization from politicians like Mike Lee, who seem to be encouraging the behavior.” 

In a pair of now-deleted posts on his personal X account, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, controversially directed blame for the attacks toward Minnesota’s Democratic leadership, calling the incidents a “Nightmare on Waltz Street” and writing, “this is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way.”

Lee’s rhetoric parallels claims that Boelter was a Democrat hunting down disloyal party members, despite the fact that Boelter left behind a target list naming dozens of state and federal Democrats, along with abortion providers and pro-choice activists.

Collins said the numerous perspectives circulated on social media following news of the attacks reflected personal political biases, facilitating the spread of false claims about the shooter’s motives. 

“We’ve got to face the reality that this guy was a Trump Republican,” Collins said. “That doesn’t mean that all Trump Republicans are bad, but we have to acknowledge that and stop pushing the false narrative.”

Boelter expressed deeply religious and conservative beliefs, specifically regarding abortion, and attended campaign rallies for Trump, according to the Associated Press.

Despite a slew of divisive online rhetoric, many leaders from Minnesota came together to denounce those trying to distort the facts of the attacks for political gain. Democratic Sen. Tina Smith confronted Lee after his initial social media post, saying she wanted to let him know the pain his post caused her and her fellow Minnesotans.

Collins said the reaction from local lawmakers and news outlets was much more measured and respectful, with local Democrats and Republicans alike denouncing both the attacks and the false allegations being spread about them.

“Harry Niska, who’s in the House and was really a foil to Hortman, pushed back against people who were pushing false stuff,” Collins said. “I’m assuming he has gotten a lot of pushback as well from anonymous people online.”

Despite attempts at local unity, the attacks on two prominent state legislators are symptomatic of a deeply divided and increasingly contentious political climate in the U.S.

The increased frequency of politically motivated attacks reflects a disturbing trend towards violence largely incited by divisive political speech, both online and in person.

Drue Bower, a second-year graduate student at the University, said in response to the poll that Trump does not condemn political violence, but rather incites it, particularly against marginalized communities. 

“I’m very sad, but I’m even more fueled,” Bower said. “Her assassination, and the president’s response to being asked if he would reach out to Governor Walz, embodies how inhumane the executive administration is.” 

We are right to worry that violent rhetoric and actions are becoming normalized in our political environment. When people in power promote violence, the consequences spread far and wide.

“It would be ignorant to think that this political violence is isolated to one group or societal issue,” Bower said. “I wish that the University administration would be more outspoken and proactive about protecting all minority groups on and off of campus.”

We’ve been through this drill before. Following an act of political violence, sensible leaders from both parties release statements condemning violence, as it has no place in the U.S. 

But judging by the actions of the Trump administration and the rhetoric adopted across the country, those words are losing their power. 

Political violence, it seems, does have a place in this country. 

We must confront this fact and address our division and divisiveness. What happened to Hortman, Hoffman and their spouses may happen again, in a new place and with new tragic losses.

We must not let violence define us or drive us further apart.

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this editorial do not represent the Minnesota Daily’s newsroom and are not necessarily representative of any individual on the Opinions Desk. This piece has been agreed upon for publication by a majority vote of all members of the Daily’s Opinions Desk.

In the era of political firebrands like President Donald Trump, it is difficult not to conclude that political violence is becoming normal. 

Many of us grew up watching political leaders lean into partisan narratives and personal insults, deepening the divide that pits citizens against each other. 

This divide came to a head in Minnesota with the fatal shooting of former Democratic state House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the shooting of Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, on June 14. 

These events, as well as the subsequent manhunt, shocked people across the nation, especially in Minnesota.

Tim Collins, a political science lecturer at the University of Minnesota, said outside of some demonstrations and unrest, Minnesota doesn’t have much of a history of political violence.

“We’ve had this reputation for ‘Minnesota Nice,’” Collins said. “Until this year, even, our legislature was a lot more collegial and nice, and there was some genuine bipartisanship that you don’t see a lot in state politics.”

Students in Collins’ political psychology course said they were shocked, sickened and in disbelief upon hearing the news of the attacks and Hortman’s death. 

Following the shootings, the question news organizations, politicians and citizens alike jumped to ask was which party the suspected shooter, Vance Boelter, 57, belonged to. 

Students in Collins’ class said they believed many people are desensitized to the fact that two people lost their lives in the attacks and jumped to politics instead of realizing the impact political violence has on both people and our society.

Political assassination should not be an act we can quickly attribute to any political party, regardless of polarization.  

Still, along with the speculation about Boelter’s political affiliation, some in the political sphere saw the attacks as an opportunity to confront political opponents. 

Olivia Hanson, a fourth-year student at the University, said in response to a Minnesota Daily opinions poll that Minnesota and the U.S. are taking on an increasingly dystopian feel.  

“The current administration is perpetrating so much hate that I’m afraid political violence will become a new normal,” Hanson said. “Not to mention the desensitization from politicians like Mike Lee, who seem to be encouraging the behavior.” 

In a pair of now-deleted posts on his personal X account, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, controversially directed blame for the attacks toward Minnesota’s Democratic leadership, calling the incidents a “Nightmare on Waltz Street” and writing, “this is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way.”

Lee’s rhetoric parallels claims that Boelter was a Democrat hunting down disloyal party members, despite the fact that Boelter left behind a target list naming dozens of state and federal Democrats, along with abortion providers and pro-choice activists.

Collins said the numerous perspectives circulated on social media following news of the attacks reflected personal political biases, facilitating the spread of false claims about the shooter’s motives. 

“We’ve got to face the reality that this guy was a Trump Republican,” Collins said. “That doesn’t mean that all Trump Republicans are bad, but we have to acknowledge that and stop pushing the false narrative.”

Boelter expressed deeply religious and conservative beliefs, specifically regarding abortion, and attended campaign rallies for Trump, according to the Associated Press.

Despite a slew of divisive online rhetoric, many leaders from Minnesota came together to denounce those trying to distort the facts of the attacks for political gain. Democratic Sen. Tina Smith confronted Lee after his initial social media post, saying she wanted to let him know the pain his post caused her and her fellow Minnesotans.

Collins said the reaction from local lawmakers and news outlets was much more measured and respectful, with local Democrats and Republicans alike denouncing both the attacks and the false allegations being spread about them.

“Harry Niska, who’s in the House and was really a foil to Hortman, pushed back against people who were pushing false stuff,” Collins said. “I’m assuming he has gotten a lot of pushback as well from anonymous people online.”

Despite attempts at local unity, the attacks on two prominent state legislators are symptomatic of a deeply divided and increasingly contentious political climate in the U.S.

The increased frequency of politically motivated attacks reflects a disturbing trend towards violence largely incited by divisive political speech, both online and in person.

Drue Bower, a second-year graduate student at the University, said in response to the poll that Trump does not condemn political violence, but rather incites it, particularly against marginalized communities. 

“I’m very sad, but I’m even more fueled,” Bower said. “Her assassination, and the president’s response to being asked if he would reach out to Governor Walz, embodies how inhumane the executive administration is.” 

We are right to worry that violent rhetoric and actions are becoming normalized in our political environment. When people in power promote violence, the consequences spread far and wide.

“It would be ignorant to think that this political violence is isolated to one group or societal issue,” Bower said. “I wish that the University administration would be more outspoken and proactive about protecting all minority groups on and off of campus.”

We’ve been through this drill before. Following an act of political violence, sensible leaders from both parties release statements condemning violence, as it has no place in the U.S. 

But judging by the actions of the Trump administration and the rhetoric adopted across the country, those words are losing their power. 

Political violence, it seems, does have a place in this country. 

We must confront this fact and address our division and divisiveness. What happened to Hortman, Hoffman and their spouses may happen again, in a new place and with new tragic losses.

We must not let violence define us or drive us further apart.

The Opinions desk put out a poll asking people to send in friendship problems they’ve been dealing with as college students.

Although we only received two responses, we included hypotheticals and personal situations, adding our own touches of wisdom into the advice.

Never fear, the Opinions desk is here! Please take (some of) our suggestions very lightly. As per usual, we’re selling the poison and the antidote. 

Anonymous first-year student asked, “It’s been a whole year and I still feel like I haven’t found my ‘people’ on campus. I know I have 3 more years, but this year flew by so fast. What can I do my sophomore year?”

Wren: Pursue your interests. You’ll find your people along the way. 

Vivian: You’re not alone. Don’t be afraid to reach out first.

Matthew: Join plenty of clubs and activities for more personal proximity!

Izzy: You have nothing to lose. Go to campus events. Keep trucking.

Amelia: Friends will come. In the meantime, have fun with yourself.

Claudia: Don’t try too hard, it happens naturally. Sometimes.

Situation 1: My friends from home and I are starting to grow apart due to distance. Is there a way to reconcile these bonds?

Wren: Communicate your feelings, but don’t be afraid of moving on. 

Vivian: Friendships aren’t one-size-fits-all. Try a different modality, things change.

Matthew: Discord calls and online game nights are underrated tools!

Izzy: Friendships come and go. It’s okay to move on.

Amelia: Friends who share Instagram reels together, stay together. 

Claudia: Probably not. 

Situation 2: I feel like my best friend is prioritizing her new relationship over our friendship. I’m happy for her, but I miss spending time with her. 

Wren: Elle Woods and Vivian Kensington became friends. So can you. 

Vivian: She’ll probably come to her senses. If not… she’ll learn.

Matthew: Try to be her confidant and respite from the relationship.

Izzy: When she comes running back, don’t let her.

Amelia: Ditch her. College is for meeting bridesmaids, not husbands. 

Claudia: Join ‘em. One man, two man. Your man, my man?

Situation 3: I’ve met so many people in college, but they all seem to drift away. How do I make university friendships develop and last? 

Wren: Commit to a few people you connect with most.

Vivian: Keep meeting new people and make efforts to stay connected. 

Matthew: Four words — Fight with your friends. Silly banter lengthens relationships.

Izzy: It’ll honestly happen randomly. You can’t predict it. 

Amelia: Start hosting things! Movie nights work wonders.

Claudia: Spill your trauma together. Works every time. 

To close it off, here’s some advice from first-year respondent Ryan who misread the poll and gave us some guidance. It’s not 10 words or less, but it rings true regardless.  

“There will always be drama, take care of yourself before others. Your future self will thank you tremendously. Don’t let people drag you down, you are stronger than you think.”

Well said, Ryan.

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this editorial do not represent the Minnesota Daily’s newsroom and are not necessarily representative of any individual on the Opinions Desk. This piece has been agreed upon for publication by a majority vote of all members of the Daily’s Opinions Desk.

A free press is a cornerstone of democracy, especially when government leaders seek to dismantle the systems that make the government democratic.  

President Donald Trump is not a fan of this free press because it exposes and criticizes his actions. The White House’s decision to control which news organizations will be included in the White House Press Pool is a dangerous step away from democratic values and puts press freedom and the media’s ability to act as a check on the president on an unclear path. 

Before this change reversed decades of precedent, the White House Correspondents’ Association managed the rotating pool of journalists who traveled with and covered the president. This group, including representatives from print, radio, television, wire services and photography organizations, is now selected by the White House.

This comes after the White House barred the Associated Press in February for not changing its style for the Gulf of Mexico after Trump ordered it to be renamed the Gulf of America.

Jane Kirtley, the Silha Professor of media ethics and law at the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Minnesota, said Trump’s attacks on the media chip away at the reliability of an independent press.

“Whether the nonpartisan, independent media are going to have an opportunity to fully and fairly cover the Trump administration going forward is a real question,” Kirtley said. “President Trump and his advisors are savvy enough to know that they can’t just unilaterally declare nobody’s allowed to cover this administration. There would be pushback from that, not only by the news organizations themselves but by their readers, by their viewers and maybe even Congress.” 

It is important to realize Trump likely won’t stop at this. 

“But to do it incrementally,” Kirtley said. “Drip by drip by drip, you suddenly end up with a situation where you really don’t have a non-affiliated, independent press that is there to provide the public information.” 

With Trump in control of the press pool, journalists may be discouraged from asking tough questions as they could be removed from the pool at any time. This does not only hurt news organizations; it hurts the people the most. 

Lorenzo Fabbri, an associate professor in the French and Italian department who specializes in visual culture under fascism at the University, said the free press is an essential part of democracy because it enables the people to access information from which to base their opinions. 

With limited abilities to cover Trump, journalists will no longer be able to provide the same level of explanatory journalism that highlights the effects of Trump’s actions, Fabbri said. Important questions about the impacts of tariffs, for example, cannot be covered in as much detail when press freedom is limited. 

“You can cover Trump and you can get access to the press conference as long as you are liked by the President,” Fabbri said. “That doesn’t seem to be in alignment with what a free press should look like.” 

The ease at which journalists’ access to Trump has been restricted should also make us question how stable the systems that uphold our democracy’s values are. We should not take the free press and access to credible critique of the government for granted. 

“It also shows how frail is the U.S. democracy,” Fabbri said. “There is one person that is deciding who is admitted to the White House.”

Christopher Terry, associate professor and Cowles Fellow of journalism, law and policy at the Hubbard School, said an antagonistic relationship between the White House and the press — to some extent — is expected and reflective of precedent. 

“It’s not just Trump,” Terry said. “Every government that we’ve ever had has had a both hostile and symbiotic relationship with the press. Just happens to be more hostile than symbiotic right now.” 

Terry said Trump has taken this antagonism to another level, and the recent White House decision reflects a greater pattern that promotes and elevates Trumpian media outlets and publications. 

“I think the thing that people are forgetting is they did the same thing at the Pentagon, right?” Terry said. “They moved out legacy media organizations in favor of OWN and Newsmax and others that are reasonably friendly to the Trump side of the equation.”

Terry said this isn’t just problematic for the First Amendment, it’s problematic for democracy in general.

Troubling developments in journalism are not limited to the White House. The Washington Post’s billionaire owner and founder of Amazon Jeff Bezos announced the paper’s opinion section would now support “personal liberties and free markets” and exclude opposing perspectives. The Post’s Opinions Editor David Shipley resigned following the announcement. 

What matters now is how the press and the people respond. 

“Suppose the University of Minnesota administration decided to stop speaking to the MN Daily and only communicate with the Star Tribune,” Fabbri wrote in an email to the Minnesota Daily. “How would you feel about this? How should the U of M community react to such a choice?”

With the freedom of the press and accessibility of credible information under threat, it is of utmost importance that citizens remain diligent in demanding transparency from an administration attempting to operate behind closed doors.

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this editorial do not represent the Minnesota Daily’s newsroom and are not necessarily representative of any individual on the Opinions Desk. This piece has been agreed upon for publication by a majority vote of all members of the Daily’s Opinions Desk.

When an administration wants to fundamentally change the trajectory of the country, one surefire way to go about it is to target educational institutions. The Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have impacted academic institutions across the country, including the University of Minnesota. 

President Donald Trump’s executive order to end federal DEI programs has created chaos and confusion throughout the federal government and within institutions receiving federal funding. 

The University is not rolling back existing DEI programs, according to an email from President Rebecca Cunningham to students, faculty and staff. The University has paused the expansion of DEI initiatives due to the recent changes and confusion surrounding DEI at the federal level. 

The email came shortly after the University of Minnesota Law School announced it had paused its search for a new assistant dean of diversity, equity and inclusion in light of Trump’s continued efforts to target DEI programs in federal and federally funded institutions. 

These announcements, understandably, caused alarm and criticism from University community members, as DEI has been an important part of the University’s efforts to foster a welcoming environment for all students. Students and faculty expressed concern and disappointment for these changes but also acknowledged the importance of protecting federal funding and the harm losing funding would have on students.

In light of these changes and the uncertainty surrounding how the Trump administration’s actions will impact the University, remember that it is the members of this community are the ones who create a diverse, equitable and inclusive culture. Policy changes do not take away this power. 

University leadership cannot entirely control how they respond to executive orders targeting federal institutions, as they rely on federal funding and Trump said he will attempt to have educational institutions fined for supporting DEI initiatives. It would be irresponsible for the University to place federal funding in jeopardy without careful consideration of how these policies will affect the institution’s ability to function and provide opportunities for students. 

However, this does not mean DEI initiatives and community concerns should be pushed aside. The Trump administration’s efforts to suppress DEI initiatives in educational institutions should not go unanswered. 

Students, faculty and staff must continue to foster a diverse, equitable and inclusive environment. The progress made by the University’s DEI efforts does not disappear overnight, but Trump’s orders can chip away at it. 

The University must continue its commitment to creating a more equitable educational environment, even if the methods are forced to change.

DEI initiatives became a catchall avenue for Republicans to criticize movements destabilizing the status quo, helping them appeal to people who feel threatened by the prospects of a more equitable society. 

One of Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI programs described these programs as “illegal and immoral discrimination” that the Biden administration “forced” into the federal government, according to an executive order from the White House. 

The idea that DEI programs are “discriminatory” is based on the idea that by giving minority groups more equitable opportunities, majority groups, primarily white, able-bodied men, will be disadvantaged. Opponents of DEI also argue these programs decrease the importance of merit. 

What this perspective ignores is the history of systemic barriers marginalized groups face throughout society. DEI programs help those left behind catch up to groups who have historically enjoyed the advantage. 

Women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people and many other marginalized groups have to overcome significant barriers most majority groups do not often, or ever, face. People from marginalized groups often have to be grossly overqualified for positions to be considered as seriously as white men with fewer qualifications. 

Effective DEI programs can focus more on opening doors for people who face barriers getting to the doors in the first place, rather than determining who to hire. These programs can ensure women get equal pay to their male counterparts, provide flexible hours for working parents and create safe work environments. 

DEI programs are about eliminating current inequities, not creating new ones. 

It is vital that we do not let limited perspectives on DEI undo years of progress many programs have made, including those at the University. 

This is not to say every DEI program is perfect. Programs favoring unqualified candidates just to make an organization appear more diverse should be adjusted to more effectively target inequities people face. Programs only aiming to achieve external diversity markers were not designed to address DEI issues in the first place. 

Even for programs that need improvement, cutting DEI initiatives is not a solution that will help people. 

Trump’s efforts to dismantle university DEI programs threaten to limit opportunities for students from underrepresented groups and undo years of progress in making education more accessible. 

We should not blame the University for the pressure the Trump administration has put on DEI. Instead, we must hold the University leadership and community accountable for protecting DEI from further setbacks. 

Above all else, we must work together to preserve the values and progress the University community has worked so hard to create and continue to push forward. 

Diverse voices make us strong. Working together makes us stronger.

Editor’s Note: We are not advocating for crimes of any kind. Take all advice lightly.

Last week, the Opinions Desk put out a poll asking our beloved readers to share their breakup woes so we could impart our sage advice.

Unfortunately, no one answered. But don’t worry! We may feel like you’re starting to break up with us, but we’re willing to give you another chance. We’ve come up with five hypothetical breakup scenarios and each columnist has written in 10 words or less how we would respond. 

Situation 1: Your ex texts “You up?” a week after you break up.

Leo: “Omw.”

Riley: Block. Delete. Report. Move away. 

Wren: Nostalgia is not the way forward. 

Jasmine: Throw your phone in a dumpster and set it ablaze.

Vivian: Ew. 

Claudia: 50 push-ups. GO!

Situation 2: Your partner of many months is refusing to commit.

Leo: Plenty of fish in the sea.

Riley: Tell their mom about it. 

Wren: Communicate how you feel. Respect them but respect you, too. 

Jasmine: Bribe them into a marriage with money.

Vivian: You probably don’t deserve that. Choose more wisely next time.

Claudia: Date their friend. Maybe they’ll commit. 

Situation 3: Your partner cheats on you with your friend.

Leo: Maybe you can join in?

Riley: Put a hex on them both. 

Wren: It is okay to be sad, but you deserve better! 

Jasmine: Blackmail.

Vivian: Directed by Luca Guadagnino.

Claudia: Cheat on your friend with your partner. 

Situation 4: Your ex asks if you can still be friends.

Leo: What could go wrong?

Riley: Were you attracted to their personality in the first place? 

Wren: Depends on who broke up with whom. 

Jasmine: Agree, then take their wallet when they aren’t looking.

Vivian: Tell them you’re entitled to benefits.

Claudia: Say yes and then never speak to them again. 

Situation 5: Your ex posts about your breakup on social media.

Leo: Hack their account. Spam them with skibidi toilet videos.

Riley: Tell everyone that you broke up with them. 

Wren: Just be glad that person showed their true colors. 

Jasmine: File a defamation lawsuit.

Vivian: Post on X that they have bad breath.

Claudia: Become Amish.

It’s been an eventful week. To lighten the mood, let’s recap the notable moments over this election season and see if you’ve been tuning in or taking care of your mental health.

Who won the presidential election?

A) Kamala Harris 

B) Donald Trump

C) R.F.K.’s brain worm

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said in the vice presidential debate that he has become friends with:

A) Murderers

B) Arsonists 

C) School shooters 

Vice President Kamala Harris emphasized in her campaign that she was the only candidate who had:

A) Forced Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to admit he couldn’t think of any laws that gave the government control over the male body. 

B) Prosecuted transnational criminal organizations. 

C) Been able to look the American people in the eyes with dignity. 

At a Wisconsin rally, when discussing criticisms that his rhetoric on protecting women was inappropriate, President-Elect Donald Trump said:

A) “Whether the women like it or not, I’m going to protect them.”

B) “Harris won’t protect you like I will because she’s soft on the border!” 

C) “I’m the nation’s protector, the best protector. Everyone says so, that I’m the best.” 

After Joe Rogan endorsed Trump, Trump said about Rogan:

A) “He’s the macho macho man.”

B) “He’s the biggest there is. Somebody said the biggest beyond anybody in a long time.”

C) “You know I’d love to give him a cabinet position, very smart, Joe. So much smarter than sleepy Joe Biden.” 

In the presidential debate between Harris and Trump, Trump falsely claimed about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio: “They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” What other animal has he expressed concern about? 

A) “The migrants are coming in and they’re taking the goldfish from the classrooms.” 

B) “A recording of 911 calls shows that residents are reporting that the migrants are walking off with the town’s geese. They’re taking the geese.”  

C) “All the rabbits have disappeared! Have you seen the rabbits? They’re taking them, the rabbits.” 

Earlier in the campaign, Harris went viral on social media for her quote:

A) “Voting for me is very demure, very mindful.” 

B) “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?”

C) “My campaign might be brat, but my presidency will be boss.” 

According to a false joke that went viral online, Vice President-Elect J.D. Vance was rumored to have sexual relations with what inanimate object?

A) A couch  

B) A lamp  

C) A roomba 

Which of these word-salad false statements did Trump actually say? 

A) “Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.” 

B) “There’s a title wave of immigrants coming in and they’re going to take away your McDonalds.” 

C) “The non-binary teachers are indoctrinating the kids with critical race theory TikTok reels!”

Lastly, what did Trump hope people took away from his recent appearance on a tarmac in Green Bay, Wisconsin? 

A) “I’ve stolen Taylor Swift’s private jet!”

B) “Tim might be a car guy, but I have this beautiful garbage truck.”

C) “I hope you enjoyed this garbage truck.” 

Answer Key:

1. B
2. C
3. B
4. A
5. B
6. B
7. B
8. A
9. A
10. C

0-3 — Okay, prioritizing your mental health is good, but did you know we have a newsletter? 

4-5 — Congrats! You’re saving money on therapy. 

6-7 — Not bad! Informed but not emotionally incinerated. 

8-9 — Wow! You know your stuff! 

10 — Respect. Also, are you okay? It might be time to touch some grass.

You asked, we answered. After in-depth deliberation, our opinions desk is here to present you with life-altering dating advice. Please take our advice with zero grains of salt.

Emily asked, “I am struggling with knowing if my partner is the one for me. I want more out of my life and feel like our relationship is not growing. We have been together for almost four years, and I don’t know how to end that long of a relationship. How do I know when to start putting myself before the relationship?”

Riley: Remember, you are the most important person in your life.

Vivian: Talk to them about this. When you know, you know. 

Wren: Relationships should add to your life, not hold you back. 

Jasmine: Look inside yourself. You are a crystal ball. You know.

Leo: Wake up and break up, sister.

Claudia: Tell your partner exactly what you told us. 

Anonymous fourth-year student asked, “I recently started seeing a man who is 26 and fully has his life together and seems to be wanting something serious. He introduced me on the phone with his mom on our second date. He’s super respectful, sweet and also makes comments about wanting to provide for me financially. Direct, sober quote ‘I’d pay your student loans for you.’ Truly every interaction and conversation we have I’m coming away with more good things about him. Though, I haven’t asked the questions about his prior relationships since I only just realized I might be seriously interested in a long-term thing with him. I haven’t seriously dated anyone in college because, let’s be honest, you’ve seen the dating pool. I’m just in my head because it seems too good to be true, and I’d like some advice — even unqualified — on what I should do about it.”

Riley: It is too good. But loans might be worth it. 

Vivian: Proceed with caution. Ask questions and gather intel. Good luck. 

Wren: Please ask those questions ASAP. Everyone has motivations. 

Jasmine: Money is worth more than love. Jump on the opportunity.

Leo: Seducing you with money? Said cash-strapped suitor seems suspicious.  

Claudia: Get that bag, diva. 

Anonymous chemical engineering student asked, “I’ve been in a long-distance relationship with my high school sweetheart, and we’re both struggling to make friends at our colleges. For her it’s even worse because the people at her school are not very open/interested in making new friends, and she doesn’t have anyone to really talk to at her school, and it hurts me because I feel helpless, other than visiting her as often as I can. What can I do or should I do other than verbally supporting her through FaceTime?”

Riley: In the clerb, we all fam (Go to the club).

Vivian: Get more involved, and encourage her to as well.

Wren: Send flowers. Actions speak louder than words. 

Jasmine: Transfer.

Leo: Hire paid actors to befriend her, duh.

Claudia: You both need to solve your own problems.

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this editorial do not represent the Minnesota Daily’s newsroom and are not necessarily representative of any individual on the Opinions Desk. This piece has been agreed upon for publication by a majority vote of all members of the Daily’s Opinions Desk.

On Tuesday night, when some of us would normally have been cozied up watching “Dancing with the Stars,” we instead turned our attention to Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance and (hometown hero) Gov. Tim Walz square off. 

The Opinions Desk gathered in the newsroom at the Minnesota Daily office to watch over some Domino’s pizza. While some may argue that a vice presidential debate won’t move the needle for undecided voters, the debate had its fair share of controversy regarding fact-checking, Vice President Kamala Harris’ authority during her term, and how much Vance and Walz seemed to actually agree. 

Moderated by CBS News Anchors Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, the debate covered a long list of topics including immigration, healthcare, gun control, abortion rights, climate change and foreign policy.  

If you missed it, here are our five main takeaways:

“The Harris-Biden Administration”

As a main argument throughout the debate, Vance consistently emphasized that, rather than being the vice president, Harris was instead the country’s leader, largely blaming her and her alone for events happening throughout her tenure as vice president. At one point, Vance referred to Joe Biden’s presidency as the “Harris-Biden Administration,” pointedly putting her name first. Although informed in decision-making, vice presidents don’t typically have a whole lot of authority in the president’s policies. 

Notably, Harris has made an effort to distance herself from Biden’s leadership in her campaign, advertising herself as a “new way forward.” This has been most likely in an attempt to separate herself from any controversies surrounding Biden’s presidency and protect her individual political identity as well. 

Politics without Donald Trump mean politeness

In what seems like a strong contrast to past debates between Biden and former President Donald Trump, Harris and Trump, or even Hillary Clinton and Trump, midwestern manners were on full display last night. The candidates maintained a cordial tone for most of the debate. At one point, Vance markedly empathized with Walz after learning that Walz’s teenage son witnessed a shooting during a discussion about gun control. 

However, that’s not to say that there were not some tense moments. In responding to a question about deportation, both candidates’ microphones were cut after they went over their allotted times for rebuttals. 

Moderator O’Donnell said, “Gentlemen, the audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut.” 

There may be a strong divide in who the debate winner was, but for the Opinion’s Desk, our strongest performers were moderators O’Donnell and Brennan for keeping things under control. 

After one of Vance’s interruptions, Brennan said, “Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to.” 

Vance wants to look forward

In one of those aforementioned tense moments, Walz point-blank asked Vance whether or not the 2020 election was a fair result. 

In response, Vance said, “Tim, I’m focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?”

Walz then responded by saying, “That is a damning non-answer.” 

Whether or not Trump and Vance can let go of the “stolen” election claims is still up for debate, they are at least focused on the future.

Minnesota Mentioned

Another notable theme of the night was how many times Walz mentioned the great state of Minnesota. According to the CBS debate transcript, it was more than 20 times. Notably, Vance mentioned Ohio less than half as much. 

Again, the debate for better vice presidential candidate may not have been settled on Tuesday, but we can safely say what the better Midwestern state is. 

Embracing mistakes 

At the end of the debate, Walz said, “I’m sympathetic to misspeaking on things,” to which Vance replied, “Me too, man.” Both candidates had their fair share of flubs and missteps last night, humanizing the debate stage in a way we haven’t seen in the last few election cycles. Perhaps this humanity and graciousness is the marker for a new era of American politics, or maybe that’s just wishful thinking. 

In light of this, we will leave you with two of our favorite worst quotes of the night.

Walz: “I’ve become friends with school shooters.” 

Vance: “But look, so many of the drugs, the pharmaceuticals that we put in the bodies of our children are manufactured by nations that hate us. This has to stop, and we’re not going to stop it by listening to experts. We’re going to stop it by listening to common sense wisdom, which is what Donald Trump governed on.”