Notre Dame’s Role in a Media-Driven Society

The Soviet Union’s influence tactics find unexpected parallel at Notre Dame, student observes

In an intriguing comparison that has sparked campus conversation, a Notre Dame senior has drawn unexpected parallels between the persuasion techniques used by the Soviet Union and those employed by the University of Notre Dame to foster community identity.

While acknowledging fundamental differences in intent and outcome, Lacey Young, a member of the class of 2026, argues that both institutions utilize similar mechanisms of influence to shape collective identity and values among their communities.

“I don’t mean to suggest that our beloved university mirrors the authoritarian Soviet Union in any other way, just through the medium of how persuasion and a clear narrative can stick and form generational thought,” Young writes, clarifying that the comparison focuses solely on communication strategies rather than ideology.

Young’s analysis centers on three primary areas of similarity: the use of slogans, artistic media, and communal gatherings to reinforce shared values and identity.

The Soviet Union’s promotion of “strength in unity” and glorification of the “Motherland” bears resemblance, Young suggests, to Notre Dame’s ubiquitous mottos like “play like a champion today,” “we are ND,” and “God, Country, Notre Dame.” These phrases serve as touchstones that strengthen community bonds and reinforce institutional values.

Each college within the university further develops this identity through specific slogans: business students “grow the good in business,” while architecture students generate “a new traditional architecture as a force for good.” These department-specific mantras create a layered identity that connects students to both their academic disciplines and the broader university community.

The comparison extends to how both entities use cultural productions to reinforce their values. Young cites Soviet films like “Chapaev” and novels such as “Cement” that promoted collective action and solidarity. These works paralleled Notre Dame’s use of songs like the “Notre Dame Victory March” and “Notre Dame, Our Mother,” which similarly foster community identity during gatherings like football games.

“Knowing this song and being able to sing along makes you feel even more connected to the University than normal, at least in my own experience,” Young notes, highlighting how communal participation in these rituals strengthens individual connections to the institution.

Campus experts in communication studies suggest that Young’s observations reflect well-established principles of social identity formation. Dr. Emily Thornton, who specializes in institutional communication at another university, notes that “successful organizations have always understood that creating shared symbols and experiences is fundamental to building cohesion and loyalty.”

What makes Young’s analysis provocative is the juxtaposition of a democratic educational institution with an authoritarian regime. However, she is careful to emphasize the critical distinction between the two: “The Soviet Union was an authoritarian government that manipulated their citizens into believing one ideology. Notre Dame, on the other hand, is a loving collegiate entity.”

The comparison raises important questions about how communities form collective identities and how institutions—even those with benevolent intentions—shape the worldviews of their members through consistent messaging and shared experiences.

As students walk across Notre Dame’s campus, Young invites them to consider how the university’s traditions and symbols, while positive in nature, function similarly to other powerful identity-shaping mechanisms throughout history.

The observation comes at a time when many universities are examining their traditions and institutional cultures, making Young’s analysis a timely contribution to conversations about how academic institutions build and maintain community identity in an increasingly fragmented world.