Do you ever get the “ick” from a situation? I do. My instinct “when something feels off” is to avoid. I’ve learned that sometimes that instinct is right, but sometimes it is not. Yet, every time I have ignored my initial conclusion and continued to stay curious, I have learned something. That is what this moment on campus feels like to me: an opportunity to address a cultural norm of removal by instinct. 

As a returning Fresno State student, attending the University pre-, during and now post-pandemic, I have witnessed a variety of changes in the student academic experience.

In 2019, I attended Fresno State’s “Gandhi’s Global Legacy International Conference,” where my academic experience was enriched by the voices and thoughts of modern Civil Rights activists, including Dolores Huerta and Rev. James Lawson Jr., the leaders of nonviolent struggles against injustice in America. 

I still remember how they spoke of Gandhi’s influence on their work, including some of the most important ideas he propagated in the fight against oppression: truth-force (Satyagraha) and the uplifting of others (Sarvodaya). 

Throughout his career, Rev. James Lawson Jr. responded to critiques of perceived racism in Gandhi’s life, drawing on his own lived experience with racism, while still affirming the value of Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence. 

This was an experience I had to sit with and commit to not rushing to any conclusions. Before deciding if an internal adjustment of my beliefs or thoughts was appropriate, I allowed their ideas to interact with my own deeply held beliefs. 

My lesson: patience is a critical factor both in this internal process and externally when using non-violence to create meaningful, sustainable and lasting social change. 

This spring, upon my return after six years to Fresno State, the campus feels different, faster and maybe even more reactive. 

Things move quickly, especially when something feels wrong, and the perceived instinctual movement is to erase and avoid.

In places of learning and growth, discomfort is inevitable and what we gain from that discomfort is our own power. As campus culture becomes faster and more reactive, universities should resist the instinct to erase symbols erected to symbolize peace, nonviolence and justice. 

As a student, I believe we must create a space for deeper learning because understanding complex histories requires time, not a quick removal. 

This semester, we have seen calls for the removal of various historical figures on campus by way of social mobilization. All efforts may have a good reason, but my disdain for the typical reaction of removal is not because I disagree with any particular reasons. 

However, if we continue to remove statues, symbols or spaces because they represent individuals who, despite their human failings, dedicated themselves to uplifting humanity, how can art and academia continue to provide (visual) ways to explore the complexity of humanity?

 These spaces, these statues and these controversies are a starting place for dialogue in academia, an opportunity to challenge our humanistic nature of avoidance of discomfort in place of engagement for growth. The flaws of human history and historical leaders are not unreal, but they also are not all that is real.

After the removal of the Cesar Chavez statue in the Fresno State peace garden in March 2026, we are seeing student efforts that call for the removal of the M.K. Gandhi Center: Inner Peace and Sarvodaya, an educational place located on the third floor of the library. Their discomfort must be acknowledged. 

However, I find myself asking: when something feels uncomfortable, do we engage with our reasons and beliefs or simply move to erase it? 

Dr. Howard, scholar of nonviolent movements, reminds us that when we center individuals as symbols, we must reckon with the full complexity of their lives: that includes the parts that are difficult and uncomfortable. 

Removing the symbol does not resolve that complexity; it avoids it. In this context, expansion is not limited to the physical room, but can be achieved through various efforts to create dialogue on campus.

If we have any grievance about a particular figure, should we not dedicate more time and space to studying and discussing the issues that lie in the legacy of these important symbols?

Instead of hastily removing what makes us uncomfortable, I suggest students be given the opportunity for a series of discussions with experts, where disagreement is valued for the sake of engagement, learning is the objective, and progression is seen as continual evolution within the self and our community. 

The Gandhi Center exists for students. Ultimately, I envision the space being used to wrestle with the discomforts that come with learning, where hard questions are asked freely and all perspectives are considered with the goal of shaping ourselves, our academic community and society in a way that is more informed.