Donald Trump might finally have some competition for his ability to control the attention and narrative of the media. They’re both running for Young Trustee.
On Saturday evening, two candidates for Undergraduate Young Trustee, Max Schreiber and Wills Rooney, released an official statement in The Chronicle notifying the public that they would not attend an endorsement meeting with Black Student Alliance (BSA). Their reason: “We cannot in good conscience attend the endorsement meeting because BSA has an unavoidable and irremediable conflict of interest in this Young Trustee election.”
They indicated that, because fellow candidate Jamal Edwards was the organization’s president last academic year and the current executive board members are supporting Edwards on social media, such a meeting would be “no endorsement meeting at all.” The duo also stated they would refrain from seeking endorsements from organizations in which they have held leadership positions including The Chronicle’s Editorial Board and the Interfraternity Council (IFC).
One can debate the politics of such a statement for quite some time, but if nothing else, this letter is an exercise in political theater, a prime example of how political candidates can manipulate the press to victimize themselves over owning up to their beliefs and record.
Donald Trump in skipping the Republican Debate this past week in Iowa performed a similar maneuver, blaming Fox News, a “taunting,” inappropriate, and not “nice” press release and anchor Megyn Kelly for his boycott of the debate. Make no mistake, missing the debate was a political move that worked greatly in favor of Mr. Trump. He boosted support amongst voters who are attracted to his authoritarian and wild card outsider brand of politics and turned the GOP field on rival Ted Cruz, who spent most of the debate defending attacks from fellow candidates.
Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Rooney seem to be operating from the same campaign playbook as Mr. Trump.
By refusing to meet with this list of respective organizations, these groups, according to The Chronicle’s endorsement policy in past elections, cannot then endorse a candidate in this election. By releasing the statement, the duo appeared to hold the moral high ground ascribing to ethical values far surpassing their opponent and previous Young Trustee candidates who have sought endorsements from organizations they previously led. No process on such a tight-knit campus as ours is perfect or free from bias, but I would hope Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Rooney could trust their peers enough that they would be be given a fair opportunity at earning an endorsement, just as their opponent and past Young Trustee candidates appear to have done.
At worst, this statement is an example of identity politics, where they believe that BSA could not somehow resist the urge to blindly endorse the only candidate of color in the election. At best, the pair has put such little faith in their peers and all of these organizations’ ability to be impartial that each of them including The Chronicle’s Independent Editorial Board should not be allowed to make endorsements in the election.
In no other Young Trustee election in the past four years on this campus have organizations who have such conflicts of interest ever shied away from endorsing candidates be they IFC, Blue Devils United, Engineering Student Government or the Editorial Board, among many others. Individuals can choose to support a candidate publicly, but endorsement meetings are designed to account for such individual preference either through recusal or editorial requirements to even be published in The Chronicle, both of which focus the endorsement on the merits of the candidates. If an organization supports a candidate who was once involved in that organization, perhaps that reflects a candidate’s ability to grasp and articulate that organization’s issues better than their opponents rather than the biased individual preferences of executive board members. Such public statements are actually a good thing for student voters because they can indicate which candidates best understand the aspects of campus life students care most about.
It seems clear that the press release is a prime example of political theater on our campus. But the words and perspectives of the candidates also represent a far more troubling and problematic reality than manipulating the narrative.
Mr. Rooney and Mr. Schreiber have the freedom to refuse to meet with BSA, IFC or the Editorial Board, but in making what is ultimately a private decision a public and dramatic one, they must be able to take accountability for what they are doing and openly stating. That’s the cost of campus discourse and debate, of the open campus that students are calling for in letter after letter yet rarely backing up in practice.
It seems in shying away from engaging with communities they seek to acquire support from and in manipulating the process in such a way as to silence the voices of cultural and affinity groups—their own included—from publicly endorsing or commenting on this election, they are stifling free speech and rigorous debate on our campus.
We should acknowledge the real conflicts of interest that exist in an election such as this one, but we should not deny ourselves an opportunity to authentically discuss and engage with the diversity of ideas and perspectives of this university in the name of racialized rhetoric like “totally Kabuki theater” or a supposed “no semblance of impartiality.”
All that we prove by refusing such opportunities is that perhaps we—and our peers who campaign to serve on the Board of the University—are as afraid of scary ideas and divisive topics that challenge our beliefs as the pundits would have the world believe.
I have to believe that we and, by extension, our campus politics can be better.
Jay Sullivan is a Trinity senior. His column runs on alternate Mondays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.