In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s triumphant victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the tumultuous November elections, the DVC Social Justice program convened a thoughtful panel discussion on November 14. This event was designed to illuminate students’ concerns and provoke deep reflection on the election’s implications.
Gathering a diverse panel of five professors alongside a local immigration attorney, the discussion veered into the realms of interpretation and future pathways. The opening remarks set the stage for a dialogue that traversed the intricate landscapes of politics and media literacy, before pivoting to the themes of community strength and resilience, underscoring their vital roles in these turbulent times.
Dr. Albert Ponce, a political science professor and the event’s moderator, framed the gathering as an essential forum. He urged attendees to scrutinize the pervasive influences of race, class divisions, and gender dynamics, coupled with the pernicious effects of misinformation in this era of Trumpism.
Ponce emphatically reaffirmed the program’s commitment to fight against censorship, rallying support for Asad Kabir, a Contra Costa College philosophy professor unjustly suspended for sending district-wide emails in solidarity with Palestine. “We stand with him and others who are arbitrarily targeted for voicing their truths,” Ponce declared, resolute in his stance against encroachments on academic freedom. “We anticipate intensified threats to our mission, but we stand ready to confront them.”
These sentiments echoed through the remarks of Mickey Huff, a seasoned history professor and leader of Project Censored. His analysis deftly illuminated the intricate dance between media corporatism and political machinations. “Those of us attuned to these dynamics are not entirely shocked by the election result,” Huff mused, “for decades, we’ve witnessed a corporate culture suffocate public discourse and stifle genuine educational engagement.”
Huff lamented the dominance of a “professional managerial class” within higher education, which he charged prioritizes quantitative metrics over substantive teaching practices. To combat this trend, he advocated for a revitalized integration of social justice with historical perspectives, promoting critical media literacy as a fundamental skill for discerning bias and misinformation.
Diving deeper into the role of media in shaping public opinion, Huff reflected on the polarization exacerbated in the election’s lead-up. He pointed out how social media strategies such as shadow banning and algorithmic curation have splintered the public into opposing camps, “Team Red vs. Team Blue,” he noted, lamenting that such divisions serve only to undermine collective interests.
Regarding the Harris campaign, Huff was blunt: “They simply failed to ignite the progressive base, aligning too closely with a center-right agenda that alienated potential advocates.” The notion that criticism stemmed from a perception of being “too woke” struck him as ludicrous. “They were allied with former war criminals,” he chided, urging a reevaluation of their strategies that ignored pressing social justice issues.
In a warning tone, he alerted the audience to the looming threat of Project 2025, the agenda instigated by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which could herald more severe right-leaning policies that jeopardize public welfare. “Trump is already enlisting individuals whose ideologies starkly contradict the community’s needs,” he cautioned, linking it elegantly to the Democrats’ current trajectory.
As the discussion progressed, Nolan Higdon, a media literacy and journalism professor, echoed Huff’s critiques while adding his unique lens. His assessment of the electoral aftermath was equally disheartening yet unsurprising. He emphasized the need for accountability in a transformative approach, highlighting that the true architects of policy failures are the individuals wielding power, not disenchanted voter blocs.
Higdon did not hold back in critiquing the Democratic Party’s elitism, recounting how past populist movements—illustrated by figures such as Obama and Sanders—had been met with disdain from the establishment. “After Trump’s victory, the blame game ensued, targeting the left instead of reflecting on the failures of the Democratic strategy,” he said, pointing to the party’s failure to adapt to the shifting political landscape.
“The Democratic Party’s continuing embrace of neoliberal policies will only further alienate the populace,” Higdon warned, dissecting how this dynamic pushed former progressives toward the Republican Party in search of genuine representation. “We must question the complacency ingrained in our academic and political frameworks,” he urged, advocating for a robust critique of the neoliberal status quo.
During the lively Q&A session, a student’s poignant query about the rigidity of the two-party system ignited a robust dialogue. Higdon grabbed this moment, affirming, “Engagement is a daily commitment. It’s about continually holding the powerful accountable and fostering a culture of dissent.” His tongue-in-cheek analogy likened political engagement to a marriage: “You must annoy them persistently to effect change,” he joked, cautioning against blind allegiance to elected officials.
As Higdon closed with a fervent call to arms, he emphasized, “This is not the time for lamentation; it’s time for action!” His clarion call for interrogating the Democratic establishment resonated deeply, urging attendees to seize this pivotal moment to demand accountability and transformative change.
