Originally published in the Miami Student May 2023

On a quick weekend trip home, my first stop was, of course, my hometown mall. A little retail therapy was needed as the semester was quickly coming to a close. 

I have a ritual when I go to my mall. I park in almost the same spot, walk the same route  — although the store I cut through recently closed, so it has changed — and walk into my favorite store, J. Crew.

As I was shopping the sales racks last time, I noticed that the racks were fuller, the store was clean and the promotional material included top notch tables scattered with catalogs as if we had entered a store from the ’90s. And then I thought – have we entered a retail renaissance?

Many retailers, such as my closet staple, J. Crew, were at death’s door as the pandemic was beginning. Just five years ago, J. Crew filed chapter eleven bankruptcy protection, Abercrombie and Fitch was on the downturn in sales and closed many of its flagship locations abroad and GAP and Banana Republic closed a total of 350 stores in 2020 alone. Lastly, Coach was on no one’s radar.

However, while the threat of online sales has been known for many years, it seems as though the pandemic might have changed peoples’ thoughts on how sacred human interaction with a sales associate actually is.

Many of these stores have come back from the ashes. Abercrombie has had surging popularity with not only shoppers but also stock holders, having one of the most successful social media rebrands in recent retail history. Now targeting an older demographic after having once served teenagers, Abercrombie has expanded sizing selections and proudly displays a wider variety of well-crafted items. 

Coach has become the hottest handbag maker on the market, creating new thoughtful designs such as the pillow tabby and reviving some greats from the archive. The brand has truly had a comeback, especially with younger consumers. Coach has become a lively brand on TikTok and has embraced making the Earth greener by launching a new brand of bags, Coachtopica, made exclusively from recycled materials. 

Banana Republic has created a whole new image by harking back to its past, using warm tones, exploration imagery and heritage pieces such as Explored Vest. Similarly, J. Crew has launched its 40th anniversary campaign, reminiscing with celebrities over the catalogs of the past and reviving and releasing a limited amount of its classic roll neck sweaters from the archives.

So what is happening? Is it the nostalgic marketing of Banana Republic and J. Crew that is bringing back consumers of the past? Have brands finally understood how to appeal to Gen Z as they are able to make their own fashion decisions? Or have we missed social interaction and are embracing the shopping mall again?

Brands are expected to adapt to ever-changing consumer habits and trends. Some brands easily adapt and evolve time and time again. Others are victims of fast trends and quick deaths. The threat of fast fashion and online sales have pushed classic brick-and-mortar brands to evolve, and some are doing it better than the fast fashion pioneers that nearly killed them. 

While all of my questions have surely come into play, one thing is certain – many mall brands have entered their own renaissance to compete with fast fashion and are doing it very well. 

morri390@miamioh.edu

Originally written 12/01/21

Social Media is an ever growing industry with never ending possibilities. Just in my lifetime I have seen the growth and inevitable death of social media platforms. We have seen the rise of Facebook and its corporation, now known as Meta, which owns a majority of social media companies such as Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp and Messenger just to name a few. This doesn’t even include the social media platforms abroad and various businesses the company also owns. We have also seen Twitter become the primary source of political news in the United States.  Social media has brought us many great things, such as being able to connect with anyone in seconds and see into the daily lives of the people you follow or friend. But as nice as this sounds, typing it out on paper does make it sound a little more creepy than great. Social media has opened doors for people to share ideas and create groups to spread information. Some of these are as simple as appreciation for history or as stark as storming the US capitol in support of a lame duck president. When do we need to cross the line and put our foot down with social media? Who needs to be held responsible for what is posted on these platforms? Just this past week a student in Michigan opened fire on his fellow students, adding to the number of unnecessary and tragic school shootings in the US. The warning signs were there based on his social media activity, posting a picture to Instagram of his fathers semi-automatic pistol that he would use just days later in his horrific act. When does the government need to step in and tell social media companies how to properly regulate what is posted? But is it constitutional if they do? Social media is the essence of our first amendment right but when does it become too dangerous? These are the most complex questions facing us not only as a country, but also as an ever connected world. We the people should be cautious of a government wanting to regulate our speech but when do we need to prioritize our own safety over speech?

The topic of social media regulation is important to me because it is somthing I use everyday for hours on end. I have countless interactions with all kinds of social media apps and outlets. Mostly mindless scrolling to fill the boredom but that isn’t always the case. Just recently a facebook whistleblower came out with statistics showing that instagram negatively affects younger users mental health by upwards of fifteen percent, leading many young users to eating disorders or suicidal thoughts. I can say as a youth that has grown up with social media that it can cause mental health issues. Constant connection leads to constant comparison. Do I look like them? Do I have what they have? Why are they in a happy relationship but I’m not? Why Am I not good enough? These are all questions that run through teenagers and even grown adults that use social media because of this constant connection. We  are able to paint the most beautiful picture of ourselves on social media and leave out the bad parts. This leads to a false reality that is harming a lot of people. False realities can also be created by indulging in conspiracy theories that are floated on social media platforms as well. Many people I know fall victim to these false narratives because they surround themselves in content that they believe to be true. As a teenager that went through the public education system I have had my fair share of school violence threats that have been posted through social media. Luckily I had great law enforcement and school staff that took every threat seriously.  Police and Staff found the perpetrator of the posts but as we have learned others aren’t as fortunate as I was. As a user I believe that something needs to change about the way social media is being run in its current state but as a constitutional friend I am wary of how it should be done. 

As a country the first amendment is (in my opinion) the most important rights we have as US citizens. As it is stated in the constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” A mouthful, but ever so straight forward for the government to follow. The text of the first amendment relates directly to social media. Social media is an outlet for American citizens (and any citizen abroad for that matter) to express in words how they are feeling or upload a picture to keep everyone informed. For congress to pass some sort of legislation regarding social media would directly relate to the first amendment. It is a very complex issue that doesn’t have one right answer. Does one go with the strict constructionism approach in fear of big government controlling the people? Or go with the more liberal approach of loose constructionism that the US should evolve and change it’s laws with changing attitudes, technology and education? What is the right approach in this ever growing social media dependent world? There are expectations of the first amendment. It is commonly expected that you do not yell “fire” in a theater, slander someone’s reputation and even words that promote violence or breach peace. The supreme court has laid these out in different cases but this is very little knowledge to the public, as I was unaware of these exceptions myself. These expectations are dependent upon the times but have set precedent for how social media should be handled. 

As I touched on above the two main arguments to the passing of legislation regarding social media fall into how you want to interpret the constitution. The strict constructionist will argue that the constitution should be read for its face value and not in between the lines. In this case any law regarding regulating what is being posted or said on social media would be regarded as a violation of citizens first amendment rights. This is true, as being able to freely exercise your right of speech can be extended through many mediums but would the founding fathers wrote the first amendment differently if they were a member of today’s society? A loose constructionist would argue we do not need to take the constitution for its face value, but rather read between the lines and fit it today’s time and circumstances. A loose constructionist might argue that it is necessary to regulate social media because it is a matter of national security and safety. Both of these viewpoints I mentioned are very compelling and present great points. As with any issue presented in US politics, I would say the majority of Americans lean somewhere in the middle on how we should regulate social media. Americans are proud of our freedoms and speech is one of the most highly regarded, next to the right to bear arms (which has many connections to social media). But I believe that Americans are becoming more aware of the dangers that social media has presented but don’t want to leave this issue up to the government. To put it frankly, the American government is made up of people who just don’t understand social media or use it for their own benefit. 

In interviews with friends and family I garnered views on the topic of regulation of social media. I asked my interviewees a variety of questions regarding social media that I deemed relevant and not leaning in a left or right manner. I asked questions such as “is social media a national safety concern”, “how does social media affect your mental health”, “Should companies or individuals be held accountable for what is posted?” and the big question, “Is regulating social media constitutional?”. From these questions I received a variety of answers that were both expected but also slightly not what I was expecting. Nearly all people that I polled told me that social media negatively affects their mental health because it conveys the “perfect” image that everyone should strive to have. I was shocked to find that people didn’t find social media to be a national security concern. When polled I received a response that it was more mental health than national safety concern. I know when I think of social media use and national safety the January sixth insurrection comes directly to mind. The use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter allowed for the circulation of conspiracy theories regarding the twenty twenty election and for President Trump to mobilize his followers. Social media has also been utilized by foreign governments to influence elections in the US. The Netflix documentary The Social Delima highlights this issue very well. It goes in great detail on Russia’s use of bots on social media to help President Trump’s twenty sixteen campaign. But alas, I designed my polling to not influence individuals. My answers for if congress should regulate social media received mixed results. Some said yes, regarding what content can be posted on social media while others said it should be a company’s choice. My polling group was composed of mostly college aged individuals so it was not surprising that they didn’t want Congress to regulate social media. Congress is made up of older people that don’t understand social media or how to use it. Polling was a great way to find opinions on this topic, but of course the results should be taken with a grain of salt since I had small turnout and limited audience, like most polling goes. 

In conclusion, the topic of social media regulation is complex and hard to answer. To define how to constitutionally regulate social media is something that goes deep into the roots of our country. To be able to express your freedom of speech is a fundamental right as a United States citizen but does that carry over onto the internet? Would the founding fathers have made the first amendment differently if they had the internet? These are questions that we have to ask ourselves. I find that I commonly ask myself this question in regards to the second amendment. In my opinion it is clear that the founding fathers would have written the second amendment differently if they were alive today. When written, the founding fathers had musket type weapons in mind that had a very small margin of lethality. Today’s modern weapons are designed to precisely kill. We as a society have even progressed to create weapons that can destroy entire countries in a matter of seconds with the push of a button. Collectively it is agreed that citizens do not have the right to bear those types of arms. So why is it so hard to decide what can and can not be said on social media platforms? The idea of a government stepping in and telling its citizens what can and cannot be said is scary for most people because it is reminiscent of many totalitarian regimes we see across the world. We don’t want the government to be able to take away our voices because they are the most powerful tool we have. But eventually we have to make a conscious decision on what needs to be done to keep citizens and our democracy safe.

In my opinion, we have to come together as a country and decide what is the best action to do to address social media. We have seen the extreme dangers it has been able to brew in the last four years. In the United States we have been shown that foregin nations are able to influence our elections by not stuffing ballot boxes, but by simply impersonating supporters of a candidate and spreading misinformation. This is a threat to our democracy and safety. We have seen so many posts on social media that were posted moments before tragedy. We as a nation need to come together and hold big tech companies accountable. We can no longer treat the internet like the wild west of free speech. Certain speech isn’t allowed in certain settings and the same should apply to social media. Too often we see people receive a meere slap on the wrist for their online activity because frankly no one has set the rules. We must vote for young people who understand social media and want to make the change that is much needed. We need to outline what can and cannot be posted on social media. We can no longer live in a world where we see all the signs of tragedy and wait too long to act. The question, “Is social media cause for congressional concern?” is complex and has no straightforward answer but there are steps we can take to fix it and not forget the constitution in the process.

Originally published in the Miami Student in February 2025

In the wake of a presidential event that has only happened two times in our nation’s history, Donald Trump is the second president elected for a non-consecutive second term by the American people. The 2024 presidential election showed us one thing: the Democrats have an identity crisis. 

The Republican Party has consolidated around a unified strategy: populist messaging that serves elite interests, as exemplified by Donald Trump’s presidency and candidacy. This approach is formally outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which provides a detailed policy roadmap for advancing Republican objectives nationwide.

But where do the Democrats fall?

Democrats across the nation are not the same. I’m from Kentucky, where Democrats try to appeal to conservatives and seem relatable to people who hold those values. And to many people’s surprise, it works. Andy Beshear is the most popular Democratic governor in the nation.

But Beshear, due to things not in his control, is popular because he maintains the status quo: white, middle-aged men in politics. Likeable, but not pushing the envelope. Democrats have tried this time and time and time again. It works sometimes, but it has failed us more times than one (Joe Biden, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry and so many more).

Do we want to run the safe guy again? Or should the Democrats take one out of the Republicans’ playbook? Will it be possible for the Democrats in America’s modern political climate to pivot?

When people “want to make America great again,” they mean they want men to be number one. For the Bible to be in schools, for people who don’t abide by these principles to “get out” if they don’t like it. To gut DEI government funding and push deregulation for business. 

They want to make the United States look like America 40 years ago. The “American Dream” of money, excess and elitism – everything that Donald Trump stands for. The White House is now the Marlago in Washington, D.C. Simply put, Americans don’t live like Donald Trump; we don’t live like Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos. Our White House represents the rich, not us, and it’s a perfect opportunity for a power grab. 

So what do Democrats want to do? The party has not been on the same wavelength since the loss in 2016. Radical newcomers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and long-time outsider Bernie Sanders are starting to become the stars of the party as dinosaurs Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden are on the way out, but the divide between the leaders of the Democrat Party is still apparent. Coming together would make Democrats powerful, and that’s what Republicans are scared of.

Republicans want Democrats to tear each other apart. They have a unified vision that they aren’t scared of sharing: a Christian, authoritarian right-wing government. Why can’t Democrats also be unified?

The Republicans have an agenda and they are getting it done. Democrats are too busy attacking each other and the other side to realize they are being played. Democrats are going through a similar process the Republicans faced in the wake of the Barack Obama presidency.

John McCain was not the star Republicans wanted. Neither was Mitt Romney. So we saw the awakening of the Tea Party. They helped usher in the MAGA party we see today. Extremist, small government, ‘don’t tread on me,’ right-wing Republicans are not scared to say what they think – and they found their leader in an unconventional reality TV star.

Let’s get one thing clear: Republicans have a mission. A mission to make America Christian, white and a monopoly for big business. 

Chris Hedges, former New Yorke times correspondent and Pulitzer prize winner, published  American Fascist in 2007. It is grime foreshadowing of what we have in 2025. It laid out, in plain words, what the religious right would use to gain access to the highest office in our country. 

Fear – their greatest weapon. Fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of divine retribution, fear of losing capitalism’s grasp. These “patriots,” these self-proclaimed true-blooded Americans, brandish their Constitutional devotion until it fails to serve their needs. They’re constitutional constructionists who refuse to bend, to interpret, to ponder what these centuries-old words mean in our modern reality. They yearn for 1776, but not the sanitized version force-fed through public education. No, they want their twisted vision of revolution, wrapped in flags and righteous fury.

Not knowing leads to easy manipulation – never leave your hometown, never question your faith, never ask where your history comes from and how we got here. That’s why they gut education and let the free market come in and donate private money to education. Education turns into propaganda. 

This is a clear agenda used, tried and true by the Republican Party. Now it’s time for the Democrats to unify. The Joe Biden Democratic Party is dead. This safe side of the party needs to take note of the Tea Party and the MAGA movement. Democrats need a message that might seem “radical.” We need to make a move that resonates with the American people. It’s time to pass the torch to the outsiders of the party like the Republicans have done.

We need to understand the fundamentals and run on it nationwide. Top-down and together is how we win. Americans are tired, tired of tech bros and select oligarchs using the American people as pawns. We must bust the trust and break up businesses.

So, let’s get to work Democrats. 

morri390@miamioh.edu

Landon Morrison is a senior at Miami University pursuing a combined bachelors and masters degree in entrepreneurship and emerging technology having graduated with his bachelors in December of 2024.  He has interned for the U.S. State Department in the U.S. Embassy in Switzerland  & Liechtenstein. Landon served on the Miami Student Foundation Steering Committee in several roles from 2021-2024 and currently serves on the college of creative arts dean’s advisory council. He has aspirations to work in journalism or public relations in the non-profit sector.

Originally published in the Miami Student March of 2025

Step foot in small towns across America and you will find acres of big box stores that have desolated the local economy. Much like the small town I grew up in central Kentucky, the American dream of owning a small business has died because of this.

Small towns have been devastated by the oligarchy that has taken shape today. The mega-corporations that bring “millions of jobs” to your small town. For many people, it’s exciting to get the mega-chains you see in big cities, until the devastation sets in.

The day soon will come when the headquarters hundreds of miles away decides that maybe your job is on the chopping block because profits are down. This is well after the box store has driven local competitors out of business and there is no one else to employ you. The suit in the headquarters doesn’t know you and quite frankly doesn’t care about your job, because they only care about returning profits to the shareholders.

When did the rhetoric of American business change from the individual to the corporation? 

Well, a restaurant napkin may be the culprit. 

Arthur Laufer is said to have come up with a supply side theory that would influence Regan-nomics trickle down theory in 1974. Georgetown Law reports Arther Laufer scribbled on a napkin,“‘We’ve been taxing work, output, and income and subsidizing non-work, leisure and unemployment. The consequences are obvious!’”

This theory of trickle-down economics was supposed to bring benefits to all Americans. We assume all people are ethical entrepreneurs and businesses care about the communities they are arriving in when we give them massive tax breaks. Supply-side economics, at its core, cuts tax rates for the wealthy and theorizes that the nation’s wealthy will reinvest that money. Unfortunately, this is not our reality, and this thinking has left us to deal with the consequences for 50 years in the United States. 

Reports from the Center for American Progress show how tax breaks to corporations have affected Americans. Tax breaks put into place by Ronald Regan and again by George W. Bush did not bring perks to the middle class; wages for workers fell lower than before the tax policy enactment. And when Bill Clinton enacted reforms that raised taxes for the rich in 1993, the economy did not slow down, it boomed and middle class incomes increased. Supply side showed that it in fact didn’t work when taken off the napkin into reality. 

My grandmother worked at Walmart for fifty years in Cynthiana, Kentucky. Nowadays, Cynthiana doesn’t boast many stores other than Walmart. A town once bustling with a beautiful downtown is a ghost town today. Beautiful empty storefronts tell a story of an America where you could have a shop of your own. But the superstores beat them in pricing, rent went up and people went in droves to the exciting “supercenter.” Now the supercenter is the only choice.

This is the reality of America in many towns. Towns full of greed, back-door tax breaks and the promise of the American dream. A dream that has been repacked and rebranded by oligarchs sitting in offices miles away. These companies care about one thing: wealth and profits. You are a body making money, paying you the lowest wage possible so one day they can be let go based on impersonal data sets.

Gone are the days when you knew every place you shopped, where the product came from and who sold it, the days when your boss was your friend and understood your struggles. Days where there was no corporate ladder, no barriers to entry. A time when empathy and the workplace could co-exist and when entrepreneurs opened businesses to make change in their communities.

Let’s make one thing clear: entrepreneurship can be ethical. I have learned this at Miami University, through IMS 585 with Mark Lacker. Business can build communities and give back in ways such as philanthropic giving and the taxes generated from their existence. Businesses sponsor your local sports team, help build parks and partner to put on events in the community.

To be an ethical entrepreneur is to understand that your growth and strategy should make positive change in your community, not your pockets. Earnings are a perk of being an entrepreneur, not a guarantee. We must teach people that the American Dream is about building businesses to make change for all, not one group or individual.

We have let corporations “grow our communities” by pillaging talent and offering prices low enough to where local entrepreneurs can not compete all while paying middle class Americans pennies to their dollars. The American Dream has become unattainable and contributed to the “brain drain” across our country. People are angry, frustrated and lost.

Unfortunately, much of America has forgotten about ethical entrepreneurs in the pursuit of wealth and the aggressive actions we see coming from Washington, D.C. Our government is cutting the taxes for the top and raising them for the bottom. So you can work for the elite from 9 to 5 for the rest of your life while the top 1% line their pockets. While we argue about the price of eggs, they control it. 

The American Dream is to own a shop, be the brand and live a life free of the constraints of a ruling class. We once explored the West, mined for gold and created our own communities for religious freedom. Now America is starting to look like a baron dystopia of mega brands owned by one conglomerate, something reminiscent of a George Orwell novel.

The dream should never be to sit at the desk for a company that could fire you on any given day. It’s an unfortunate reality. We need to step up to greedy oligarchs and restore the ethical entrepreneurial spirit of the American Dream.

morri390@miamioh.edu 

Landon Morrison is a senior at Miami University pursuing a combined bachelors and masters degree in entrepreneurship and emerging technology, having graduated with his bachelors in December 2024.  He has aspirations to work in journalism or communications in the non-profit sector.