Student newspapers go gaga over Hillary on election day
College newspapers across the nation are helping students gear up for Election Day by publishing voter guides and editorials, almost all of which show a clear political bias in favor of Hillary Clinton.
The Yale Daily News, for instance, published what was presented as a guide to the candidates’ stances on college tuition and sexual assault, calling it a breakdown of “how Clinton and Trump differ on the major challenges facing American universities.”
The article, however, praises Clinton for adopting “popular” education platform of her former opponent, Bernie Sanders, noting that in her “plan to make higher education affordable” Clinton promises “that half the project’s $350 billion budget will go toward grants to states and colleges designed to make four-year public universities more affordable.”
The Daily News' synopsis of the two candidates then goes on to note that Clinton has “also pledged to protect federal Pell Grant funding for low- and middle-income students” and “significantly cut the interest rate on student loans,” while explaining that Trump “has made relatively few public pronouncements about college affordability,” saying that he has “instead...had to fend off sustained criticism for his management of Trump University, a now-defunct real-estate training program that is currently the subject of two class-action lawsuits brought by former students who say they were defrauded.”
The article then switches to the topic of campus sexual assaults, explaining that Clinton has “outlined a three-step plan,” but noting that most Yale students think that “Trump’s track record of alleged sexual harassment and misogynistic comments make him unfit to address the problem.”
The Daily Gamecock, a student publication out of the University of South Carolina, offered a non-traditional endorsement of “Democracy” two days before the election, telling its readers they should vote for anyone but Trump, whose election the editors predict would threaten the “foundation of American democracy.”
“We cannot, in good conscience, advocate for the election of Donald Trump,” the paper’s editorial board writes. “However, we are also declining to endorse any alternative in favor of emphasizing his unique dangers.”
The board goes on to assert that Trump has advocated for gun owners to assassinate Clinton, that he has purposely intimidated minority voters, and that he could potentially cancel future elections with the help of the United States military.
“We don't care if you vote for Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, or Harris Pastides,” the board assures readers—as long as they don’t cast their ballots for Trump.
“Without exaggeration, some of Trump's behavior could risk the character of the republic itself...please don't vote for the candidate who threatens the foundation of American democracy,” it concludes.
Similarly, The Michigan Daily’s editorial board published an article encouraging students to vote, and “vote smart,” which the paper explains to mean that students should “vote today and make the headlines ‘Millennials defeat Trump.”
Noting that millennials are notorious for abstaining from voting, “and given that Trump has been polling higher in Michigan leading up to Election Day,” the editorial declares that “it’s vitally important for students to have a strong presence at the polls” in this election.
Additionally, The Cornell Sun published what was intended to be a survey of university professors with their respective takes on the election, but every one of the professors who were interviewed asserted that Trump is not the answer, claiming he promotes “racism,” “authoritarianism,” and “sexism.”
“He embodies a xenophobic and reactionary vision of Americanism: the avenger bringing arms, the resentment of a White population that does not accept becoming a minority in a country of immigrants,” professor Enzo Traverso told the newspaper.
Likewise, Professor Rachel Weil told the paper that Trump demonizes “black men as rapists” in order to “justify white men’s claim to possess and protect women.”
Several other student newspapers have published full-blown endorsement of Secretary Clinton, including the University of California, Los Angeles’ publication, The Daily Bruin, which contends that Americans have a choice between “a reckless and divisive candidate who relies on fear and vitriol to fuel his base,” and a “socially responsible candidate with realistic policies and the political chops to govern with poise,” by which the paper means Trump and Clinton, respectively.
“Throughout the 2016 campaign, Clinton has faced unprecedented levels of offensive and harmful rhetoric from her opponent,” the editorial states. “Instead of descending into the fray, she continues to show the country what it means to act presidential, demonstrating her ability to be an exponentially better leader.”
At least three other university publications have published Clinton endorsement within the past 24 hours, including ones out of West Virginia University, Emory University, and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, whose student paper asserted that Clinton “must be our next president.”
Note: Campus Reform investigative reporter Amber Athey also contributed to this article.