On Sept. 26, the JHU College Republicans (JCR) announced their official endorsement of Donald Trump for president of the United States. On Oct. 19, the JCR posted a statement on their Facebook page explaining why they chose to endorse Trump. Bizarrely, in their statement, the JCR wrote “we... do not encourage people to vote for Donald Trump in this upcoming election,” yet they still stand by their endorsement, prompting the question: What the point of an endorsement is if not to encourage people to vote for a preferred candidate? Yet their most hypocritical and cowardly action is refusing to talk to The News-Letter or any press about their endorsement.
Many conservative groups, and indeed many liberal groups, have decried the rise of so-called “political correctness” on college campuses. Just two weeks ago, The News-Letter published an opinion piece by Sofia Diez entitled “Don’t assume PC culture is always right,” a popular sentiment especially among College Republicans.
Last year, during the Alan Dershowitz controversy, many students accused progressive groups on campus of giving into political correctness at the expense of free speech. A quick scroll through the national College Republicans’ twitter reveals contempt of “political correctness,” “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.” Yet, in a deeply ironic twist, the JHU College Republicans have created for themselves their own politically correct safe-space.
The JCR has turned themselves into what the College Republicans hate: the caricature of an overly-sensitive, politically correct student who clings to their echo chamber. I can only surmise that their refusal to talk publicly about their endorsement, aside from their two Facebook posts, is an attempt to avoid criticism (which obviously isn’t working anyway).
If I ever hear another conservative on this campus complain about “political correctness” or “safe spaces,” I will have no choice but to resort to hysterical laughter. No, I refuse to take any criticism of overly-sensitive college liberals and leftists seriously after this deeply hypocritical decision by the JCR.
But not only is this almost-complete silence deeply hypocritical, it is also an act of enormous cowardice. In their second Facebook statement, the JCR acknowledges Trump’s “demonization of women, minorities, war heroes, and others” (again, this phrase is coming from an ENDORSEMENT of Trump, not a condemnation). Yet by refusing further to discuss their endorsement publicly, the JCR is side-stepping answering questions like “how can you support Trump and yet still respect your Muslim, female, black, Latino and Jewish peers and professors?”
Based upon their Facebook statements — again, the only thing I can refer to since they refuse to release anything else — the JCR seems to put forth the defense that it’s okay endorse a white-supremacist misogynistic candidate because the other choice is worse. This is not a defense so much as a cowardly deflection; it’s saying “HEY LOOK OVER THERE INSTEAD!” Saying that the other one is worse isn’t a defense or a legitimate argument, but it is the only one the JCR has given their peers (on that note, I am not a Clinton supporter and have written numerous articles criticizing her, so the argument “Clinton is bad too” does not work on me).
The JCR has (very astutely) absolved themselves of any responsibility of their public endorsement of Trump. They have created a situation in which after the election (and, given current polls, when Clinton is probably elected president) no one can ask “Hey, why did you guys say or support this?” The JCR can point to their ridiculously lily-livered Facebook statements and claim that they only wanted to support the Republican nominee or that they were voting of the lesser of two evils as opposed to having to answer for any of Trump’s policies.
The amount of cowardice in that strategic decision is so mind-boggling to me because it shows that the JCR has absolutely no values. Its position is inherently reactionary: “Well, the other one is bad, so I guess we will endorse this one.” Their two Facebook endorsements of Trump literally do not include a single policy of his that they like or support.
They have not allowed campus press to ask them about his policies, even though their group constitution states that one of their purposes is to “contribute to the political discourse on campus.” They refuse to defend their values; If you do not have the fortitude to publicly defend your values, then you have none.
Politics is not a goddamn board game: It requires defense of your values, challenging others and accountability. Politics can be frustrating, liberating and often dangerous. Perhaps the JHU Republicans should quit politics altogether and instead swap recipes and play cards during their meetings since it does not appear they have any interest in actually engaging in political discussion.
This hellish election is thankfully almost over, and in a few months we will all be able to reflect on who we chose to support and why. However, the only thing the JHU College Republicans’ can reflect on is their decision to embody cowardice, hypocrisy, and a disgusting lack of values.
Emeline Armitage is a junior International Studies major from Cleveland. She is a senior staff writer for the Opinions Section.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.