The 2024 election was called for former President Donald Trump. Four opinion writers delve into what this electoral change means for Princeton — from what Princeton could do to protect undocumented students, to what it reveals about how institutions of higher education communicate with the country to externally, to the question of whether the theory we read in class should have more weight in how we think about electoral politics.

No one is safe from Trump’s anti-immigration plan, not even in Princeton

By Jorge Reyes, Contributing Opinion Editor

As we wait for Trump’s victory to be certified, we reflect on what this election means for ourselves, for our country, and for our university. At first glance, one might think that Trump’s speech hate speech towards migrants and his plan to invoke the Foreign Enemies Act of 1798 carrying out mass expulsions only concerns undocumented immigrants. However, the truth is that such rhetoric poses a danger to everyone who lives in America. If he is willing to invoke a law previously used for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and the the targeting of European immigrants during World War Iwhat makes us think Princetonians are safe?

Everyone at Princeton should understand that the hateful nature of such projects knows no bounds. Princeton, as an educational institution committed to a diverse campus where everyone is able to express their opinions, must set an example by ensuring that the new administration cannot infringe on the rights of their students, undocumented or not.

It is more important than ever that the University supports its students and protects their freedoms. Among them, the University must improve protections for students’ free speech, as Trump has made clear: he is ready to expel those who exercise their constitutional right to protest against the genocide in Gaza. Additionally, by providing the legal support provided by comparable institutions to their undocumented students will be crucial to ensuring they can continue their education 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 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 back his supporters.

By Alexander Margulis, Contributing Opinion Editor

As the dust settles following what appears to be a landslide Trump’s victory, we will hear many explanations of how his weird, malicious, undemocratic The campaign succeeded in bringing him back to the Oval Office. Princeton affiliates should pay attention to the words of Ezra Klein of the New York Times account of the central theme of this election: Trump’s conspiratorial coalition has constantly questioned “the fundamental value of (American) institutions.” »

We have to work to restore confidence among embittered Trump voters. The extent of Trump’s support – it is projected winning the popular vote for the first time — reaffirms the need for this project. Many voters see a world in which the American government, media, and universities – especially elite ones like Princeton – have been corrupted by Democratic influence and distorted against Republican values.

Changing your mind won’t be easy. The task itself doesn’t seem right. Those who despise Princeton and distrust the scientific endeavor it represents will prove difficult to talk to. In an ideal world, our University should not have to continually justify its DEI commitments nor its climate research. But a world in which a figure like Trump wins the popular vote is clearly not ideal.

Get the best of ‘the prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Ultimately moving Princeton’s unofficial name currency getting closer to the heart of one’s undergraduate experience may prove to be our most effective fight against anti-intellectualism. If this election was a referendum on whether Princeton and its peer institutions are truly in “service to the nation,” the American verdict is clear: they are not. I think America is wrong. I hope that as a member of the Princeton community, you will too. Over the next four years, under a president openly hostile to the most fundamental principles of higher education, in a country increasingly frightened and angry, we will have to prove it.

Alexander Margulis (he/him) is a freshman from Princeton, New Jersey, who wants to study English. He tries not to be afraid and not to be angry. Ask her questions at amargulis(at)princeton.edu – having something to do would help her push away that fear and anger.

Democrats do not prioritize the working class. Princetonians must do it.

By Frances Brogan, Deputy Opinion Editor

Donald Trump’s devastating victory reflects the pervasive appeal of a populist agenda. His campaign anti-immigration, white nationalist the rhetoric is disgusting and terrifying – and yet the buffoonish voice of his running mate economic populismalthough often misguided, defends the kind of distrust of businesses that you might expect to hear from Bernie Sanders. In response, Princetonians should step outside the orange bubble and engage with communities with whom Trump’s message resonated.

According to many economists, Harris’ policy proposals would be better for working class Americans that Trump voters, despite being white, working class massive support THE criminal and demagogue ready to take back the White House. There is a reason for this cognitive dissonance: Democrats do not embrace the progressive economic populism that could help them win back the working class, even if research shows that running economically populist candidates from working-class backgrounds is an effective strategy.

The Democrats have failed to engage with and understand the working class. Only two to six percent of their candidates are themselves from the working class. The lesson we should learn from this catastrophic election result is to resist the insularity of the orange bubble – or whatever bubble we find ourselves in – and get to know the people around us. When you leave the academy, you also have to leave your elitism behind. We have a responsibility to communities who will likely be affected far more than we are by a second Trump presidency – and we cannot fulfill that responsibility if we isolate ourselves.

Frances Brogan is an associate opinion editor and future history major in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. She can be contacted at frances.brogan(at)princeton.edu.

Princetonians must reject the current political paradigm

By Christopher Roblescommunity opinion writer

There’s been a lot of talk on campus about this year’s presidential election: how to vote, who to vote for, what’s at stake. And there’s been a lot of talk about what civic engagement and service looks like more broadly: the value of the public sector, the policing of activism, and the inner workings of the University. And of course, there was a lot of talk about much more radical political theories: Marx, Fanon and Lorde, the kinds of things we read in our classes here.

What happened to the liberation? Why does receiving an “I Voted” sticker carry more weight in the public consciousness than the fact that the candidates voted for promulgate neoliberalism and social stratification?

The issue is not to participate in pragmatics. As activist and academic Angela Davis recently explained in conversation with African American Studies Professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, we must retain the ability to engage in struggle, to contain contradictions, given the framework.

Rather, Princeton’s problem is that its students have almost entirely abandoned the moral imperatives that should guide their actions, limiting our understanding of social problems to those of politics – those that can be solved by voting for Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Jill Stein , or any other name in Tuesday’s vote. Why do students struggle to develop radical, progressive political theory just to bastardize their names, separating the social and economic imperatives of these academics from the policies of their favorite politicians?

We hope Tuesday’s red wave reminded Princetonians that their commitment to change cannot begin and end at the ballot box. The path ahead must be illuminated by principles of freedom that can be imagined, learned and taught.

Christofer Robles is the community opinion editor of “The Prince.” He can be contacted at cdrobles(at)princeton.edu.