Stephen
Kershnar
A Mistaken Response to Donald Trump’s
Election
Dunkirk Fredonia Observer
December
5, 2016
A fight has broken out over how
university administrators should respond to Donald Trump’s election. Underlying
the fight is the question of how universities should view students.
A number of university presidents
responded to Trump’s election by reporting students’ traumatic feelings.
Consider the comments of State University of New York at Fredonia’s president
Virginia Horvath. “[T]here was considerable
disappointment in the room as the numbers of electoral votes moved closer to
270. ... Students of Color, LGBTQ students, international students, students
with disabilities were dismayed—not a strong enough word—and reported to me,
again and again, that the country apparently voted that they don’t matter.” She
continued, “There was a lot of confusion and shock. A number of people reported
physical signs of trauma: sick to their stomachs, shaking, and numb. Many were
crying and holding one another.”
She
then channeled their sense of oppression, “The social media comments from
students continued through the rest of the night, with people expressing fear,
inability to sleep, anger, and profound sadness at what they saw as
affirmations of the racism, misogyny, and disrespect they associated with the
campaign.” Horvath said what university presidents across the country were saying.
University
of Colorado at Boulder president Phillip DiStefano said, “You
may find yourself with friends, classmates or colleagues who do not share the
same reactions as you. … In some cases, you, or others close to
you, may feel you are experiencing or witnessing negative treatment or more
subtle forms of oppression, perhaps related to the election or perhaps because
of your race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious
affiliation, country of origin, political thought or other aspect of your
identity.” DiStefano then gave therapeutic advice in telling students and
others how to respond to the election, “Connect
with friends, family, a community or a safe space to ground and support you. …
Take care of basic needs such as eating, sleeping and drinking water.
Incorporate activities that recharge and relax you.”
Students
elsewhere reacted similarly. The Daily
Signal reported that at an event sponsored by Planned Parenthood, Cornell University students staged a
“cry-in” following Clinton’s defeat. Students dressed in black and held signs saying
“He’s not my president” and similar things. At American University, 200
students gathered in protest and some burned an American flag. UCLA students
burned a Trump piñata. Yale students responded with a coordinated primal
scream.
Writing
in WorldNetDaily.com, conservative
intellectual Jack Cashill criticized Horvath’s comments. First, he argued that
Horvath was wrong to take the charge of racism seriously and that her doing so
defamed Chautauqua County residents. He argued that Chautauqua County voted for
Obama in 2008 and this is evidence that the county is not racist.
I
might add that Trump is well-known as a long-time supporter of the gay
community, both financially and personally, and well before it became popular
to do so. He even opposed the North Carolina bathroom law. None of this is news
to anyone who followed the election.
Second, Cashill claimed that Fredonia
students had a demeaning view of the county’s voters. He argued that voters’ preferences
for Trump were not unreasonable. He
points out that the county’s poverty rate is 20% and 57% of the county’s
students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The county’s voters might
reasonably have thought that the status quo is not cutting it and preferred
policies other than more debilitating handouts. Cashill suggested that Horvath
should have shown more respect for the county’s residents by telling the
students, “You sniveling little elitist. Grow up quick or get the hell
out of here.”
Third,
encouraging hothouse-flower sensitivity is not good for the students. The
country is split along two very different worldviews and the left will not win
every vote or Supreme Court decision. Validating students’ trauma, shock, and
crying suggests that such oversensitivity is legitimate. Americans, including leading
intellectuals, differ as to whether the Bible prohibits homosexuality, whether
it should let in another 25% of Mexico, and whether the government should
further socialize medicine and education. Students would gain more by
rigorously discussing these issues than by citing trauma to excuse themselves
from engaging with their opponents. Even if they are confident in the left’s solutions
to these issues, students might still learn about the reasons that best support
these solutions, improve their ability to think through such issues, or gain some
helpful insight in the otherwise mistaken conservative views.
Fourth,
there is no doubt that if, following the election, evangelical Christians, pro-lifers,
or College Republicans were depressed, angry, or crying, college presidents wouldn't
worry about them, let alone send out memos asking us to sympathize with their
trauma. In crediting their concern with voters' racism, homophobia, etc. the
presidents adopt the view of the far left critics of Trump voters. This is not
an intellectually respectable position. Even if it were, they are free to
broadcast their views, but should not use state channels to do so.
The
broader issue is whether universities should view students as adults and
intellectuals or as vulnerable teenagers who shouldn’t be expected to handle political
discussions. By comparison, no one would say the same thing about young Marines
disappointed by the election that they said about students. Universities will
eventually have to decide whether to continue to spend more on therapeutic and
other support services and less on classroom programs, especially in the most
demanding majors (for example, chemistry, math, and history). They will also
have to decide whether to encourage the faculty to lower standards to match
some students’ poor work habits, psychological vulnerabilities, and inadequate college
preparation. These decisions dovetail with the attitude one takes toward them
as disappointed voters.
Universities
shouldn’t baby students about the election. It validates a false and demeaning
view of voters, encourages oversensitivity, and reflects universities’ far left
bias. It also incorporates a view of students as children rather than adult
intellectuals.
