Campus Conversations on the 2024 Presidential Election
Student perspectives on the most pressing issues
—By Shaw Young
The price tag at the local grocery store stops Alan Zhang in his tracks. A carton of eggs—once a cheap staple—is now a painful reminder of rising costs. “It feels like everything is spiraling,” the computer science senior murmurs. For Zhang, like many students at the University of Michigan, the soaring costs of groceries, rent, and utilities have become a daily struggle, pushing personal budgets and patience to their limits. “How is anyone supposed to focus on school when you’re barely making it through the month?” he adds, shaking his head as he walks past the aisle.
Across campus, Zhang’s concerns echo in conversations between students juggling coursework and part-time jobs. Inflation is no longer an abstract figure discussed on cable news; it’s felt in the tightening grip of financial insecurity, impacting everything from meal choices to housing stability. Zhang’s experience underscores a broader anxiety consuming the University of Michigan campus as the 2024 election approaches. Rising prices may be the most visible concern, but they are only part of a tapestry of issues driving political discourse. From the erosion of reproductive rights to fears about the survival of democracy, UM students are grappling with challenges that will define their generation.
Rising prices
The specter of rising prices looms large over discussions of the 2024 election, especially on the University of Michigan campus. A recent AP News article revealed that economic concerns were the top priority for voters in 2024, with many citing rising prices for gas, groceries, and housing as critical issues. The economic strain was palpable in traditionally Democratic strongholds like New Jersey and Hawaii, where Republican candidates gained traction. In the same article, interviewee and single mother in New Jersey, Mara Russo exemplified the frustration: “Anybody can see what’s going on. The prices of everything. I notice that when I go shopping—just like everybody else does.”
The inflation crisis has sparked debate over its root causes and solutions. Max Zahn from ABC News reports that economists identify a combination of factors, including pandemic-era supply chain disruptions, stimulus measures under both the Trump and Biden administrations, and global conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war. In the same ABC News article, Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel noted, “The recovery from the pandemic took longer than expected, with supply constraints creating significant inflationary pressure.” While inflation peaked at over 9% in mid-2022, the impact lingers, particularly for essential goods. Critics, including Alabama Senator candidate Mike Rogers, have pinned blame on President Biden, describing inflation as a “silent creep unleashed by the current administration.” (ABC News) Others, however, argue that the crisis is more complex. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics emphasized that pandemic and global supply chain disruptions from the Ukrainian war remain the primary culprits, reports Max Zahn.
The same AP News article reports that economic anxiety has significantly influenced voting patterns. Working-class voters in areas like West Oahu, Hawaii, and New Jersey, shifted Republican in response to inflation. These areas, traditionally Democratic, now grapple with questions of resource allocation, safety, and basic affordability. As Vikram Raghu, another computer science senior, remarked, “It’s harder to live. Grocery shopping, buying clothes, gasoline—just living.”F
At the national level, the persistence of inflation has fueled skepticism about economic policy. Raghu voiced concerns about proposed tariff hikes under a second Trump administration, explaining, “These measures might aim to bolster domestic industries, but they could exacerbate consumer costs. As someone considering moving abroad, these policies weigh heavily on my decisions.”
MSNBC reports that Trump has gone as far as to propose “whatever tariffs are required—100%, 200%, 1,000%”—to prevent Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) from undercutting American EVs. Students and experts alike highlight the need for thoughtful economic reforms. Suggestions include curbing corporate price gouging, addressing housing shortages, and revisiting tariff policies. Zhang stressed the importance of bipartisan solutions: “We need policies that address inflation without pushing costs onto the most vulnerable.”
Democracy
Beyond the tangible struggle of rising prices, many University of Michigan students are deeply worried about a broader, more abstract issue: the state of American democracy. For Raghu, this concern has a personal dimension. “If democracy continues to erode, I might not want to stay in the U.S.,” he said, referencing his planned move to Japan and fears about the country’s political trajectory. His apprehension is shared across campus, where conversations often gravitate toward the resilience—or fragility—of democratic institutions in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
Central to these fears is Schedule F, a proposed executive order first introduced in the final months of Donald Trump’s first presidency. The initiative sought to strip federal civil servants of long-standing job protections, potentially allowing the president to fire thousands of employees deemed disloyal. Critics argue that Schedule F represents a fundamental threat to democratic governance. As explained in an analysis by Protect Democracy, such measures “bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will,” risking government corruption and inefficiency while fostering a culture of political loyalty over public service.
For Izzy Giallenza, a data science senior, Schedule F is emblematic of a troubling trend. “The idea that civil servants could be fired for not aligning with a president’s ideology—it’s chilling,” she said. “It undermines the whole idea of a nonpartisan government working for the people.”
Raghu echoed this concern, calling it a “blueprint for authoritarian control.” He added, “If Trump implements Schedule F, it won’t just be bureaucratic jobs at stake—it will be the independence of entire government agencies. That’s not something a democracy can survive.”
The January 6, 2021, insurrection continues to cast a long shadow over American politics, serving as both a cautionary tale and a rallying cry for action. On that day, a mob stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, spurred by false claims of widespread voter fraud. Reporting by CNN highlights the extent of Trump’s involvement, with testimony showing that he not only refused to condemn the violence but also actively pressured officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, to overturn the election results.
For many students, January 6 represents a turning point. “It showed just how fragile our systems are,” Giallenza said. “When people are willing to attack the Capitol, it’s not just about one election—it’s about whether we can trust the system at all.”
The erosion of voting rights is another pressing concern for students like Giallenza and Raghu, who see it as a cornerstone issue in the fight to protect democracy. Under a second Trump administration, many fear renewed efforts to suppress votes, particularly among marginalized groups. According to an ACLU analysis, Trump’s allies have already signaled their intent to enact policies that disenfranchise voters through aggressive voter roll purges, spurious investigations, and intimidation tactics at polling places.
Giallenza is particularly troubled by these efforts, citing the disproportionate impact on communities of color, voters with disabilities, and those with limited English proficiency. “Voting is supposed to be a fundamental right,” she said. “If we can’t even ensure fair access to the ballot, what kind of democracy are we defending?”
Despite these challenges, students like Raghu and Giallenza remain hopeful that change is possible. Both emphasized the importance of civic engagement and grassroots activism in countering anti-democratic trends. “It’s not enough to just vote,” Raghu said. “We need to hold leaders accountable and demand transparency.”
Reproductive rights
Among the many issues dominating conversations, one stands out for its profound implications: reproductive rights. With the 2024 presidential election decided, this topic has become a lightning rod, sparking intense discourse among University of Michigan students.
This concern reflects a broader fear shared by students and activists nationwide about Project 2025, a sweeping conservative roadmap crafted by the Heritage Foundation and supported by a coalition of right-wing organizations. The document outlines an agenda that, among other goals, seeks to severely restrict abortion access through measures such as reinstating pre-2016 safety protocols for mifepristone and reintroducing stringent dispensing requirements. Critics argue that these measures are thinly veiled attempts to undermine reproductive freedoms.
At the heart of this debate is the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that bans the mailing of materials deemed “obscene,” including abortion medications. While largely dormant for decades, Project 2025 proposes reviving the act to curtail access to abortion pills, particularly in states where abortion remains legal. The document asserts that the FDA “failed to protect women” when approving mifepristone, calling the process “politicized and illegal from the start.”
For students like Giallenza, these proposals are alarming. “This isn’t just about the Comstock Act—it’s about setting a precedent that undermines reproductive healthcare nationwide,” she said, citing her fears about the rollback of abortion rights under a conservative administration.
Although former President Donald Trump has publicly distanced himself from Project 2025, the overlap between its goals and his policies is undeniable. Trump stated, “I know nothing of Project 2025,” even as key figures in his circle, including Trump’s cabinet pick for budget chief, contributed to the 900-page manifesto. Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president, has frequently invoked Project 2025 in campaign speeches, describing it as “a dangerous blueprint for turning back the clock on progress.”
Despite Trump’s claims of independence from the project, Giallenza isn’t convinced. “The platform aligns too closely with Trump’s first-term policies. Whether or not he’s read it, the influence is clear,” she remarked. The blurred lines between Trump’s agenda and Project 2025’s recommendations deepen concerns about what a second Trump presidency could mean for reproductive rights.
Central to this debate is the deregulation of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions. The FDA’s decision to lift in-person dispensing requirements in 2021 was hailed as a victory by reproductive health advocates but condemned by Project 2025, which calls for reinstating earlier restrictions. The roadmap proposes limiting the drug’s use to within 49 days of gestation, reinstating in-person dispensing, and requiring prescribers to report all serious adverse events.
For many students, these changes signify a broader assault on reproductive freedoms. “It’s not about safety—it’s about control,” Giallenza argued. “The science doesn’t support these rollbacks. They’re politically motivated and put lives at risk.”
On the other side of the debate, Zhang, believes there is room for compromise. “I support a national minimum standard for abortion laws,” he said, referencing his view that there should be a gestational limit at which a fetus is considered viable. Zhang’s stance reflects a more moderate perspective within the conservative camp, contrasting with the hardline positions outlined in Project 2025.
However, Zhang acknowledges the complexity of the issue. “We need policies that protect both the unborn and the rights of women. It’s not an either-or decision,” he added, underscoring the need for nuanced dialogue in an era of polarized politics.
As students navigate these contentious debates, the broader implications of Project 2025 loom large. Giallenza fears that the rollback of reproductive rights under such a plan could disproportionately impact marginalized communities. “Access to abortion isn’t just about choice—it’s about equity,” she emphasized. “Low-income women and women of color will bear the brunt of these policies.”
The roadmap also raises questions about the extent of executive power in shaping reproductive policy. Project 2025’s authors envision a federal government that enforces conservative values through sweeping administrative changes, a vision that critics warn could erode democratic norms.
As the reality of Donald Trump’s 2024 victory sinks in, the University of Michigan campus is bracing for a future defined by uncertainty and resistance. MLive reports that the University’s Board of Regents allegedly plan to vote to defund DEI initiatives on December 5th, a possible consequence of changing tides and catalyzed by Trump’s victory. For Raghu, these outcome reinforces the urgency of collective action. “This isn’t the time to retreat—it’s the time to double down,” he says. “The fight for democracy, equity, and our rights isn’t over. If anything, it’s more important now than ever.”
Raghu’s words capture the resolve of a generation unwilling to stand by in the face of political and social challenges. While the election has heightened anxieties about inflation, reproductive rights, and the health of democratic institutions, it has also ignited a sense of purpose among students. For many, Trump’s presidency is not the end of their aspirations for change, but the beginning of a renewed and determined struggle for a better future.
Feature photo, Photo Of Person Dropping A Vote; Photo Credit, Pexels, licensed under the Creative Commons