Election reactions: What students and faculty are talking about

Donald J. Trump’s election to the presidency last week brought an atmosphere of shock and tension not only to the nation but to the Muhlenbubble as well.

This is perhaps the most divided election in history, said President John I. Williams Jr., in an e-mail to the college the day after the election. The college will need time, he said, no matter what the outcome, to mend the rift.

“In the days ahead,” said Williams, “we need to make space for reflection, discussion, and consideration of what has happened and the variety of thoughts and feelings that this election will have stimulated in our community, in various communities throughout our nation and, indeed, in communities around the world.”

He later reiterated his point in another e-mail.

“Irrespective of your position on the election—whether you supported or opposed the ultimate outcome—it is essential that we each recognize that concerns about the future, about safety, and about next steps are felt deeply by many other members of our community,” said Williams, “None of us is alone.”

Perhaps the biggest shocker came in the defiance of predictions, as Justin Eigen ’18, emphasized.

“Every poll, every measurement, every intellectual out there thought that he had no chance of winning after all the scandals, after everything,” said Eigen. “It was not on people’s minds.”

Although Political Science professor Christopher Borick says it is too early to tell, he believes a combination of additional voter turnout in rural areas, meaning additional votes the polls didn’t take into account, and voters’ hesitance to publicly admit their decision to vote for Trump contributed to this confusion.

“Our [Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion] poll showed that Pat Toomey was leading in his US Senate race against Katie McGinty by one point, and he ended up winning by 1.7 percent,” said Borick. “In the same poll Trump was trailing Clinton by four points but ended up winning by one percent. These results suggest that voters may have been more forthcoming with their support for Toomey than for Trump where some degree of social desirability bias may have been at play.”

Borick also suggests, and many students agree, that we should give Trump a chance.

“The system we have in place has produced a winner and Donald Trump should be recognized as the President-elect,” said Borick. “Trump deserves an opportunity to govern. Just as surely as he has earned this opportunity Americans that are opposed to both his policies and actions as president have the right to protest and challenge him through peaceful means.”

Although there were plans to hold a protest in Seegers Union, by the end of the night the Facebook event had been rescheduled before being canceled altogether.

Though there are undoubtedly some individuals who would still be interested in protesting, an anonymous Clinton supporter cited Trump’s business experience as a potential strength.

“We are in a recession,” he said. “I know he’s a businessman so I do suspect that he knows his way around business and I hope that with that knowledge he can put us back in a place where we are economically stable again.”

Still another Clinton supporter showed doubts in his potential.

“That sort of Laissez-faire capitalism [supported by Trump], it has never worked,” she said, “It just has never been effective. The ruling class are just out to rob the vulnerable and the uneducated and those without class privilege. And it’s not going to change because we have a president who is more relatable.”

She also made note of the larger implications of Trump’s victory.

“The fact that he won against an extremely qualified woman,” she said, “is just such a sad, sad metaphor for how unbreakable the glass ceiling really is.”

Another concern for democrats is the Electoral College, particularly for Eigen.

“Our electoral system is completely flawed,” said Eigen. “This is the fourth time in history where a presidential candidate has won the presidency without winning the popular vote, and if you do the math that’s a seven percent failure rate, and a seven percent failure rate for the most important office in the country, if not the world, is unacceptable.”

Another anonymous senior, though, believes that the system still works. She explained that her father worked for the government for 25 years and was on a first-name basis with Supreme Court judges.

“[My father] and I both have faith in government to do what it is supposed to do, and a great lack of faith in government to do exactly what it’s supposed to do,” she said. “We have a great system that is setup to function beautifully. That being said, we have a lot of political congestion that makes it hard to pass laws but it’s deliberately hard to pass laws. Because if people could pass laws willy-nilly we’d have things changing every day. So it does what it’s supposed to do, but what it’s supposed to do is a process.”

Jeff Rudski, Professor of Psychology though, sees a lack of understanding between the two parties.

“Democrats may disagree with Republican proposals,” said Rudski, “believing they will accelerate the problems facing the country (and the planet), but they didn’t do nearly as good a job at conveying empathy with those sharing these concerns.”

As an anonymous Clinton supporter noted, even on campus some opinions drown out others.

“I would say that there are a lot of very outspoken liberal people on this campus and it often overwhelms everyone else, and it seems very one-sided, like all these liberal ideals should be a given, and I know they’re not for everyone, certainly not for all of America, considering how the election turned out.”

An anonymous freshman who voted for Trump said she felt alienated from her friends, who all voted for Clinton.

“During the night of the election” she said, “I kind of was rooting for Clinton because I knew that people would be more mad if Trump won, at least here on the college campus. But my friends were kind of mad at me because I voted for him, so I was kind of sad that he won in a way. I couldn’t be happy that the person I voted for won because of that.”

According to Campus Safety Chief Brian Fidati, some students are doing more than shunning their friends.

“Campus Safety has had conversations with students and others who, leading up to the November 8th election, have had political signs removed and/or destroyed in the vicinity of the College,” said Fidati. “Since the election, we have spoken with students on both political fronts who have felt uncomfortable by the words or actions of others. Some students have reported to have to have received social media messages denouncing their opinions or political beliefs. None of these acts were deemed to have risen to the level of Criminal Harassment.”

Dean of Students Allison Gulati is also working to settle these instances.

“We have heard secondhand about a handful of instances of people from all backgrounds and political beliefs that have been made to feel unwelcome and unsafe,” said Gulati. “We have been responding to each of those students and student groups as they have been reported to us.”

In the wake of this tension, Borick suggests looking at other perspectives.

“I would just like to encourage some increased recognition on the part of individuals regarding voters that may have made decisions different that theirs,” said Borick. “For Clinton voters I hope that they know a vote for Donald Trump does not necessarily mean that the individual that cast that vote endorsed all that Trump has done and said. And for Trump voters I would love to see recognition that their candidate’s rhetoric has caused real fear among many individuals in the United States and that it is imperative that Trump recognizes these concerns as the nation’s 45th President.”

Photo courtesy of Gregory Kantor