A gripping post-election discussion organized by the Office of Student Life took place on Nov. 9 in the Bearcat Den to help students cope with the results of the election.
The event, scheduled only a few hours prior to its start time, was poorly organized and minimally advertised. The marketing effort did not go beyond OSL and Undergraduate Student Government’s respective Facebook pages, meaning that a lot of people may not have known that the event was even taking place.
At 4 p.m., when the event was supposed to start, OSL was not there to set it up. The ill-timed posts led to scattered attendance during the discussion. At the beginning of the event, the number of people in attendance could be counted on a single hand.
Though attendance eventually increased, albeit slowly, the location remained suboptimal, as it had not been closed down to the general student population. Although the location was picked as a last-minute resort and is viewed as a shared public space on campus, it attracted chatter that belittled personal conversations and diminished strong emotional responses.
At the very least, students at the Bearcat Den who were not there for the event could have been asked to leave. The only interaction between the general students and the faculty members sitting in on the discussion took the form of a request to a nosy student to shut down his cellphone.
Granted, the event was put together on the very day that the election results had been released and most people anticipated an entirely different outcome. This is not a viable excuse, however, because the event should not have been planned solely because Donald Trump won the presidential election. No matter the results of the election, an event to discuss the outcome should have been organized ahead of time.
Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton received the predicted majority vote in New York, the percentage that voted for Trump should have been recognized. The majority of New York voted democratic, but this is never a reason to disregard the other New Yorkers who have cast a vote for another candidate.
It is important to realize that this was an election characterized by dangerous rhetoric and two of the most hated candidates in history. Therefore, everyone should have been given the opportunity to voice concerns and contribute to a post-election discussion. This event should have been coordinated earlier and with greater regard to everyone affected by the election results.