The 2024 election has been called for former President Donald Trump. Four Opinion writers weigh in on what this electoral shift means for Princeton — from what Princeton could do in order to protect undocumented students, to what this reveals about how institutions of higher education communicate with the country outside, to whether the theory we read in class should have more weight in how we think about electoral politics.
Nobody is safe from Trump’s anti-immigration plan, not even at Princeton
By Jorge Reyes, Contributing Opinion Writer
As we wait for Trump’s victory to be certified, we are thinking about what this election means for ourselves, our country, and our University. At first glance, one may think that Trump’s hateful rhetoric towards migrants and his plan to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to conduct mass deportations only concerns undocumented immigrants. However, the truth is that such rhetoric poses a danger to everyone living in America. If he is willing to invoke a law previously used for the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII and the targeting of European immigrants during WWI, what makes us think Princetonians are safe?
Everyone at Princeton should understand that the hateful nature of such plans knows no bounds. Princeton, as an educational institution committed to a diverse campus where everyone is able to voice their opinions, must set an example in ensuring that the new administration will not be able to infringe on the rights of their students, undocumented or not.
It is more important than ever that the University supports their students and protects their freedoms. Among them, the University must improve protections for student freedom of speech, as Trump has made it clear that he is ready to deport those exercising their constitutional right to protest the genocide in Gaza. Furthermore, providing the legal support that comparable institutions provide to their undocumented students will be crucial in ensuring they can continue their studies like everyone else. Time is running out, Princeton. We ask you to act now before it is too late.
Jorge Reyes is a first-year contributing Opinion writer from Louisville (Loo-uh-vuhl), Ky. and can be reached at jr7982[at]princeton.edu.
Trump’s victory reflects America’s distrust of institutions like Princeton. We must win his supporters back.
By Alexander Margulis, Contributing Opinion Writer
As the dust settles in the aftermath of what appears to be a landslide victory for Trump, we will hear many explanations as to how his bizarre, spiteful, anti-democratic campaign managed to return him to the Oval Office. Princeton affiliates should pay attention to the New York Times’ Ezra Klein’s account of this election’s central theme: Trump’s conspiratorial coalition has constantly questioned “the basic worth of [America’s] institutions.”
We must work to build back trust among Trump’s embittered voters. The extent of Trump’s support — he is projected to win the popular vote for the first time — reaffirms the necessity of this project. Many voters see a world in which America’s government, media, and universities — especially elite ones like Princeton — have been corrupted by Democratic influence and contorted against Republican values.
Changing their minds will not be easy. The task itself doesn’t feel fair. Those who despise Princeton and mistrust the scholarly endeavor that it represents will prove difficult interlocutors. In an ideal world, our University shouldn’t have to continuously justify its DEI commitments nor its climate research. But a world in which a figure such as Trump wins the popular vote is clearly not ideal.
In the end, moving Princeton’s unofficial motto closer to the core of its undergraduate experience may prove to be our most effective counter to anti-intellectualism. If this election was a referendum on whether Princeton and its peer institutions really are in the “nation’s service,” America’s verdict is clear: they aren’t. I think America is wrong. Hopefully, as a member of the Princeton community, you do too. Over the next four years, under a president that’s openly hostile to the most basic tenets of higher education, in an increasingly scared, angry country, we will have to prove it.
Alexander Margulis (he/him) is a first-year from Princeton, N.J. who is interested in studying English. He is trying not to be scared and angry. Ask him questions at amargulis[at]princeton.edu — having something to do would help him fend off said fear and anger.
Democrats aren’t prioritizing the working class. Princetonians need to.
By Frances Brogan, Assistant Opinion Editor
Donald Trump’s devastating victory reflects the pervasive appeal of a populist platform. His campaign’s anti-immigrant, white nationalist rhetoric is disgusting and terrifying — and yet his buffoonish running mate’s economic populism, while often misguided, champions the kind of distrust of corporations that you might expect to hear from Bernie Sanders. In response, Princetonians should break out of the Orange Bubble and engage with the communities Trump’s message has resonated with.
According to many economists, Harris’s policy proposals would be better for working class Americans than Trump’s, and yet white, working class voters overwhelmingly support the felon and demagogue poised to retake the White House. There’s a reason for this cognitive dissonance: Democrats aren’t embracing the progressive economic populism that could help them win back the working class, even though research shows that putting forth economically populist candidates from working-class backgrounds is an effective strategy.
Democrats have failed to engage with and understand the working class. Only two to six percent of their candidates are working class themselves. The lesson we should take from this catastrophic election outcome is to resist the insularity of the Orange Bubble — or any other bubbles in which we find ourselves — and get to know the people around us. When we leave the academy, we should also leave behind its elitism. We have a responsibility to the communities that will likely be far more affected by a second Trump presidency than we will — and we can’t fulfill that responsibility if we isolate ourselves.
Frances Brogan is an assistant Opinion editor and prospective History major from Lancaster, Pa. She can be reached at frances.brogan[at]princeton.edu.
Princetonians need to reject the current political paradigm
By Christofer Robles, Community Opinion Editor
There has been plenty of talk on campus about this year’s presidential election: how to vote, who to vote for, what’s at stake. And there has been plenty of talk about what civic engagement and service look like more broadly: the value of the public sector, the policing of activism, and the inner workings of the University. And, of course, there has been plenty of talk about much more radical political theory: Marx, Fanon, and Lorde, the kinds of things that we read in our classes here.
What happened to liberation? Why does receiving an “I voted” sticker weigh more in the public consciousness than the fact that the candidates being voted on promulgate neoliberalism and social stratification?
The issue is not participating in the pragmatic. As activist and academic Angela Davis recently explained in conversation with Professor of African American Studies Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, we must hold on to the capacity to engage in struggle, to hold contradictions, given the framework.
Rather, Princeton’s plight is that its students have almost entirely abandoned the moral imperatives that should guide their actions, constraining our understanding of social issues to merely those of politics — those that can be resolved by voting for Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Jill Stein, or any other name on Tuesday’s ballot. Why do students toil through radical and progressive political theory just to bastardize their names, separating these scholars’ social and economic imperatives from their preferred politicians’ policies?
Tuesday’s red wave has hopefully reminded Princetonians that their engagement with change cannot begin and end at the ballot box. The road ahead must be informed by principles of freedom that can be imagined and learned and taught.
Christofer Robles is the community Opinion editor for the ‘Prince.’ He can be reached at cdrobles[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA singles run ends in Sweet 16
Hayk Yengibaryan and Tate HutchinsAfter reaching the Round of 16 in both the NCAA singles and doubles bracket, sophomore Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA run came to an end in Waco, Texas following defeats in both brackets on Thursday.
After reaching the Round of 16 in both the NCAA singles and doubles bracket, sophomore Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA run came to an end in Waco, Texas following defeats in both brackets on Thursday.
Reform first-year orientation: Less structure, stronger connections
Cathleen Balid“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
Opposition to weapons divestment referendum takes shape
Annie Rupertus and Miriam WaldvogelAs the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
As the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
