Executive Order 14168, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” restricts participation in women’s sports to individuals assigned female at birth. The order applies to all institutions that receive federal funding, which includes all public schools and nearly every college and university in the US. 

It was signed on National Girls and Women’s in Sports Day, in alignment with Trump’s campaign promise of ending “the war on women’s sports.”

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) quickly aligned itself with the executive order and announced that it would formally change its policy on transgender students. The policy, which formerly allowed trans athletes to participate in women’s categories after a certain period and levels of hormone treatment, now requires all athletes competing in women’s categories to be assigned female at birth (AFAB). The NCAA has not changed its policy for transgender athletes participating in men’s sports, and it also still allows for non-AFAB athletes to participate on women’s formal practice teams (it is common for elite women’s basketball teams to compete against practice teams of male athletes). This means that while trans women are barred from inter-collegiate competition, they are still allowed a spot on an active roster. 

Wellesley Athletics follows the same steps as other institutions such as Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, which also pulled their pages outlining their transgender policy from their websites. Today,  Bethany Ellis announced in an email to Wellesley Athletics that the college had formally updated their transgender policy to be aligned with the NCAA competition and practice policies. 

While not unexpected, this action was disappointing to many student-athletes and others involved in Wellesley Athletics. 

Marty Martinage ’24, a former Wellesley Crew Captain and organizer for Trans Students Belong at Wellesley commented: 

“I spent a lot of my junior year sitting down and talking with people in admin about the lack of gender-inclusive language at Wellesley, and I’m genuinely sympathetic to the position they’re in. As I understand it, the ‘women’s college’ language has been part of how we avoid being required (through Title IX or otherwise) to go coed. Wellesley Athletics seems to be in their own version of this bind — they’re complying with blatantly discriminatory executive orders in the hopes that, by doing so, Wellesley students writ large will be able to continue practicing and competing in a community that genuinely prioritizes women’s sports.”

Martinage’s comment reflects a common dilemma amongst student activists. The rights of trans women and girls in sport are a very real but also very symbolic problem: NCAA President Charlie Baker told a Senate committee last December that fewer than 10 trans student athletes were competing in women’s categories across the entirety of the NCAA.

In a statement to The News, the College said that Wellesley’s website changes reflect NCAA policy and that these policy changes do not apply to any current Wellesley athletes. 

On Feb. 7,  Athletic Director Bethany Ellis commented in an email to all student athletes and PERA staff that while Wellesley will honor the NCAA change in policy, the Athletics “department remains committed to supporting and affirming all athletes, including our transgender student-athletes.”

This executive order is one of many actions taken by the Trump Administration against transgender people. However, it has not gone unchallenged. Maine Governor Janet Mills has openly refused to comply with the Trump Administration’s ban, saying, “see you in court” to Trump during a confrontation at a meeting with all state governors. 

Additionally, two high school girls from New Hampshire have also challenged Trump’s Executive Order. Supported by a legal team from GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), these young trans students, who were already in the process of suing the state of New Hampshire over a law which banned them from participating on girl’s sports teams at their high school, formally amended their complaint to also include Trump’s Executive Order. 

Despite ongoing cultural debates about trans women athletes, there has been no public organizing regarding this issue on Wellesley’s campus. Wellesley Athletics has also taken no further action regarding a change in the NCAA transgender policy.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Jessica Chen, Sazma Sarwar, and Valida Pau.

Updated on March 3, 2025 to include community perspectives.

Like the average citizen in the 19th century, we too are faced with a rapidly changing landscape. Discourse on artificial intelligence (AI) has become an increasingly popular topic across major news outlets and college campuses over the past few years. The rate of innovation in the field means there is always a new development upon which we can reform and extend our current understandings of how AI will shape our world going forward. There are an abundance of issues in regards to AI, ranging from job loss to the impact of its incredibly high energy use on the environment. However, I want to examine one of the most widely purported benefits of artificial intelligence: time. 

It has become increasingly common for business executives to rely on artificial intelligence to organize and optimize their daily work load: by allowing AI to handle their more “menial” and time consuming tasks, this allows them to dedicate more of their energy to higher-level projects. A similar strategy is often preached to students to optimize their learning: such as using AI to analyze practice problems to highlight areas for further study or generating lists of relevant sources at the beginning of a research project. The basic proposition of AI is that it allows us to skip over tasks of “low” value to focus our attention on “high” value tasks. 

But what makes a task “low” value? These tasks are often necessary, but time-consuming. In other words, they are tasks that, in theory, are better to automate. This argument rests on the assumption that these tasks are only valuable for individuals based on the outcomes they produce rather than the processes they require. However, I find this to only rarely be true, particularly for students. Consider the example of allowing AI to analyze your practice problems or quizzes to suggest areas for improvement. I would argue that grading and evaluating your own work teaches you more than AI’s automation of the process by allowing you to discover the boundaries of your knowledge yourself.

Studying in this way also pushes you towards proven effective studying strategies such as those relying on active recall. Although AI might be helpful for some organizational study methods, such as planning spaced repetition, for methods that rely on students’ critical thinking, AI seems to fall short. If our goal as students is to learn and become more intelligent and thoughtful people, why should we let AI do the learning for us? 

This logic can apply to the professional world as well. Although the goals of the corporate world are fundamentally different from those in education, over reliance on AI can replace critical analytical skills. This is particularly important when it comes to recognizing the current limitations of AI. If executives rely too heavily on artificial intelligence, they might lose the ability to recognize when and where it falls short.

Additionally, the use of AI as a time-saving tool continually relies on “best intentions.” Yet many people acknowledge that they use AI as a shortcut to doing work faster, rather than as a tool to make their work better. If we could fully trust everyone to use AI solely for good, we would not continually find ourselves amongst discourse regarding the boundaries of professional and academic dishonesty related to AI. 

Much like Thoreau and the railroad, I have ambivalent thoughts on the use of AI. I think that artificial intelligence has the potential to do so much good. Its implications for scientific research are nearly infinite. At its best, AI will allow us to extend the boundary of human achievement. However, I worry that artificial intelligence will draw out the worst in us rather than the best.

I worry about the loss of critical analytical and technical skills developed overtime through the repetition of “menial” tasks we are quick to bypass through use of artificial intelligence. AI is changing the course of human history; however, we should be cautious that we don’t lose the skills to live and work meaningfully without it. 

This past Tuesday, the consequences of this choice were revealed with now President-Elect Donald Trump overwhelmingly winning both the electoral college and the popular vote. Trump saw major gains amongst young male voters, likely due to his simple success of getting them to vote at all. In the immediate aftermath of the election, young white men became an easy target of blame. Many women began to publicly advertise and support the 4B movement: a feminist movement with origins in South Korea in which participants refrain from heterosexual dating, marriage and sex, as well as childbirth. I have witnessed all of these reactions first hand on Wellesley campus; however, I can’t help but wonder if it’s really fair. 

I will admit I too felt a sense of disappointment in witnessing the significant gender gap amongst voters this past election. In some ways it felt like a sign that either many men in this country support Donald Trump’s bigoted and dangerous policy agenda, or they couldn’t deal with the possibility of a woman of color holding this nation’s highest office. I, too, wanted to blame white young men. They felt like a simple and easy scapegoat to my internal rage. Unfortunately, the results of this election, as always, tell a significantly more nuanced story. 

First off, it feels impossible to ignore the structural reasons Donald Trump and other conservative leaders drew the love and attention of many young men in the first place. Many social scientists have long identified the trend that young men are “failing” in modern America. As a group, they are achieving less milestones of development than young women in almost every category: they are less likely to seek higher education, more likely to live at home and have far higher rates of suicide.  This overall lack of direction provides critical insight into why Donald Trump, who promises a return to a time when men succeeded at the cost of everyone else, may seem so attractive to young voters. One can’t help but wonder how additional support, whether through direct intervention or better role models, might have led these young men to vote differently. 

Additionally, it feels somewhat hypocritical that often the largest group calling out these young men is white women, a demographic which also predominantly voted for Trump. While there was still a significant gender gap amongst voters this election, it was far lower than predicted and lower than in 2020. Biden led women by nearly 15 points, and Kamala Harris only saw an 8 point lead. 

I don’t point out this difference in order to turn women on women or to allow the young men who voted for Donald Trump to escape accountability for their actions. In fact, I think that many women have been able to find community together in collective grief. I also think that it is valuable for women to critically evaluate whether the men in their life value their rights and safety.  However, I caution against making the same mistake twice.  It shouldn’t be women’s responsibility to teach young men to respect women and support their rights, but we have seen first hand that isolating young men often only pushes them further to the right.

Contact the editor(s) responsible for this story: Caitlin Donovan

8 p.m. at the KSC/Pendleton East Atrium 

Much like in 2016, I began my election night in the Keohane Sports Center (KSC). I had finished watching Wellesley Field Hockey beat Salve Regina 4-1 when I wandered over to catch the tail end of Wellesley Volleyball’s 3 straight set win over WPI. Unlike in 2016, the KSC was not done up in Election Night decoration, and only about 100 people were gathered in the field house. As the game finished up, my friends and I made our way to our first watch party of the evening hosted by CPE in the Pendleton East Atrium. Despite the event having only just begun, the Atrium was packed and the energy was high. The food ran out quickly as people snatched seats to see the first polls close. Much like in 2016, the room was still filled with enthusiasm and hope of what could be. 

9:30 p.m. Tower Great Hall

After spending an hour and a half watching with CPE, I made the trek to my second stop of the night in Wellesley Great Hall to watch with Wellesley Dems. It was by this time that the dread had started to built. Many nervously watched more and more polls come in and watched as the NYT needle ticked further and further right. As in 2016, this is when excitement was replaced with anxiety. People still believed she would win, but it was now said with a tinge of doubt. 

11 p.m. Claf Basement

By the time I had made it to the final watch party of the night with AGORA society, many I knew had already turned in for the night. Unlike in 2016, when people still anxiously awaited every poll result, the result of each swing state created a fresh wave of disappointment followed by belief that the next one would be different. The Wellesley students of today had seen this film before. All of the swing states were already leaning red by this point in the night. Most of us that were still awake knew deep down what the result would be, even if we hadn’t admitted it to ourselves yet. 

2016, 2:29 a.m. EST, the Associated Press calls Wisconsin and the Election for Donald Trump 

2024, 4:34 a.m. EST Trump wins Wisconsin and the Presidential Election 

Even if not as heartbreaking as 2016, watching the 2024 presidential election was difficult for many. This being said, I am glad to walk away from this night with a feeling of solidarity with my other Wellesley students. It is also inspiring to see that Wellesley students will still show up for each other and have hope for our country even if we have been burned before. 

Contact the editor(s) responsible for this story: Caitlin Donovan

Despite the best efforts of many parents and the frustration of teachers across all levels, recreational reading is at an all-time low. This phenomenon stretches into college life, where the state of dorm libraries is abysmal. While dorm libraries are never an advertised feature of Wellesley’s academic life, they pose an opportunity for collective dedication to reading. However, these libraries frequently fall short of their potential. 

As the most accessible collections on campus while Clapp is closed, dorm libraries tell a clear story about reading on the Wellesley campus. There is no formal organization system for these books, meaning the contents of each residence hall vary greatly. Some, like Munger, have a variety of textbooks, classics and a few contemporary novels while others, such as Tower, contain little to no modern literature. Lulu’s collection within the Anderson Forum is also notable – it largely showcases reference materials, similar to Tower. Despite the large volume of titles that reside in these nooks across campus, recreational reading materials are in short supply and are frequently outdated. 

The emphasis on academic texts may factor into a lack of recreational reading at Wellesley and reflects the general downturn in the prevalence of reading across the United States. The National Assessment of Educational Progress reported only 43% of fourth graders achieved reading proficiency on the 2022 exam and an absence of full-text usage in elementary and middle schools reported by the EdWeek Research Center corroborates this lack of mastery. Experiencing a truncated literary education during primary schooling may be impacting both the academic and recreational lives of college students; if undergraduates are struggling with the long-form texts required by classes due to underdeveloped reading stamina, additional voluntary reading seems a meager possibility.

While the closed library and consequently limited access to books pose barriers, reading as a leisure activity can still be encouraged via campus initiatives, such as the “Rec Reading” request form. The QR code can be found around the Mods, which holds the current collection of leisure reading materials. This form allows students to solicit titles for acquisition by the college in order to bolster access to recreational reading. Nevertheless, this effort is not widely known, largely due to the building’s distance from the central campus. Increasing usage of social media or spam to advertise what the Mods offer in regard to leisure reading could augment the visibility and usage of these resources. 

Additionally, improving the state of our dorm libraries is far from impossible. One of Wellesley’s most beloved unofficial traditions is Sustainability Bins, where Wellesley students can donate clothing or furniture items they no longer need. These items are then available to Wellesley students until they are collected and donated at the end of the year or resold at the start of the year in the annual Sustainability Sale. As a start, we could use a similar model for our dorm libraries: at the end of the year, Wellesley students can donate books they no longer need. While this is an imperfect system, some of these books likely need to be donated to outside organizations due to spacial concerns anyway. This creates a tradition of annual donations, which could increase the likelihood that dorm libraries would at least contain up-to-date textbooks and novels from the past decade. While both of these strategies are unlikely to solve the recent decrease in recreational reading, they are achievable first steps to revitalizing a culture of reading here at Wellesley.

It is a sad but true fact that as the general election looms closer, the major party candidates tend to shift more towards the center as they appeal to the swath of undecided, centrist voters. However, I hope that no one is entirely disillusioned with the notion that Kamala Harris has completely lost the liberal leanings that defined her early career. With this being said, it is worth considering whether Harris was always the candidate we often imagined her to be. 

I think it’s important to draw a distinction between the Harris campaign we saw in 2020 and the Harris campaign of today. In 2020, Harris didn’t even make it through a round of primary voting. At that time she had no major executive experience, so her best bet was to lean into the image of a liberal senator that offered an alternative to the more centrist options, such as Biden or Buttigieg, and who was also younger and more energetic than Warren or Sanders. However, Harris’s campaign barely got off the ground as it lacked both funding and a coherent campaign strategy. Additionally, Vice President Harris has earned significant experience since her first presidential run, gaining both executive and international experience. Considering all of this, it seems somewhat unfair to compare Harris of 2020 to the Harris we see today. 

However, I think it is fair to say that Harris has refined her platform as a candidate since she became the de facto nominee after President Biden dropped out of the race this past July. Notably, while still a major advocate for Gun Control, Harris has recently spent more time advertising her gun ownership. Additionally, as her campaign has developed an image independent of her as the first major party presidential nominee to be a woman of color, she has locked in on the notion of an opportunity economy. 

This is also where I need to share a hard truth. You express frustration that Harris isn’t responding to her voters because she thinks that former President Trump has set the bar so low that it doesn’t matter. The truth is, she is listening to her potential voters, but she probably isn’t listening to you. I don’t say this to mean we shouldn’t hold politicians accountable for their actions through our vote, and I believe many young people are angry at Harris’ inaction on the genocide in Palestine.

However, for every young person angry at Harris, there is a fiscally conservative 40-something who now feels more seen by Harris’s focus on abortion rights and an accessible economy. And to the Harris campaign’s credit, the youth vote is powerful, but it is also unreliable. Voter turnout for people under 29 usually hovers around 30%, for people over 45 it hovers around 65%. I appreciate where you are coming from. It is incredibly hard to feel excited about a candidate that you now feel is letting you down. However, I hope it brings you some peace to know that Harris is listening, even if it isn’t to you. 

As always, if you are a member of the Wellesley community and have thoughts on the presidential election or on this most recent article, Please fill out this form: https://forms.gle/V7VYFs3A9tVp24vv9

I can definitely sympathize with all of the third-party voters out there. Many US voters feel frustrated by both of the major candidates running for election in 2024. I particularly sympathize with liberal independents who may feel slighted by the lost opportunity to have a more formal selection process for the democratic nominee after Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race. Additionally, it feels unfair to put thirdparty voters in the same category as those who abstain from voting at all, simply because their choice of candidate has a very low likelihood of ever reaching the Oval Office. 

I also undoubtedly believe that the US would significantly benefit from structural changes being made to its election system. For example, if the US were to incorporate “Ranked Choice” voting, more people could freely vote for candidates outside of the two major parties without fear that they are unintentionally carving a path to success for their worst choice option.  Ranked Choice voting is a system where voters rank candidates in order and the lowest ranked candidate is dropped through multiple rounds until one candidate receives a majority of available votes. 

With this in mind, I am not in the business of telling you how to vote, and there are valid personal reasons for choosing to vote third party. Additionally, I applaud you for your continued participation in the democratic process, which few college students do to begin with,  even if you are frustrated with the existing system. 

However, I want to explore where the “vote-shamers” are coming from. By expressing that you are “voting with your conscience,” you are declaring that you are unwilling to compromise your existing social values when selecting a candidate. I think that is incredibly important, and your choice offers an effective challenge to many candidates to do better. However, you also should understand there are many people who might share your frustration with the current electoral system and continue to vote for one of the two major parties anyway. Here we can find the principle of political harm reduction: the willingness to vote for a candidate you may not align with, in order to avoid the election of a candidate who is comparatively far worse. While voting for a third-party candidate is a reasonable choice, it is unlikely that your vote will select a winning candidate. Furthermore, if your livelihood would be directly negatively affected by the election of a specific candidate, you would vote in the most likely way to prevent that candidate from being elected, which rationally would be voting for the other major party candidate. 

It is reasonable to be frustrated that many people don’t support your choice of candidate or your choice of voting strategy more generally. However, even in your frustration, you express your equal lack of understanding for other voting philosophies. If you ask others to extend grace to you, in recognition of your choice to vote third-party, you should also be willing to extend grace in equal measure to those who vote for the “less worse option” in order to avoid the “worst case scenario”

As always, if you are a member of the Wellesley community and have thoughts on the presidential election or on this most recent article, Please fill out this form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSef4OPkKeLkFOmbzIIouB5Jk6LIVccyS20RFNx17EtBJDo58g/viewform?usp=sf_link

The sudden change in Babson’s ranking also draws attention to the seemingly subjective standards by which we rank. Babson, which is unranked by US News as a national university, managed to surpass the widely recognized Top three schools such as Harvard and MIT. While The Journal’s rankings are perhaps not as famous as the US News rankings, its popularity in part emerged from a desire for changing methodology. Notably, unlike the US News Ranking, WSJ uses only data that is publicly available for the schools they evaluate. This arose after the controversy surrounding Columbia’s falsified reporting of relevant statistical information to US News in order to inflate their own ranking. 

WSJ primarily ranks schools based on student outcomes. Specifically, they are evaluating how well schools boost students’ projected earnings, based on incoming students’ financial backgrounds. This brings us back to Babson. Knowing that the WSJ’s methodology is primarily rooted in economic outcome, it is somewhat unsurprising that a small business school, entirely focused on educating its students in professional fields, is incredibly successful. However, it begs the question; why do we rank colleges in this way? While economic mobility is undoubtedly important, these rankings seem to argue the only reason a college is worth attending is if it helps you achieve higher-paying employment outcomes. 

This is neither the first nor the last time the methodology of college rankings will be called into question. When some schools have famously based their entire philosophy on appealing to rankings, it begs the question why bother having rankings at all. Now, I think some rankings are genuinely helpful to know. For example, rankings regarding school culture may offer incredibly valuable information to students unable to travel to visit their dream schools. Additionally, when done correctly, it is entirely possible that rankings can be a means of elevating excellent colleges that are traditionally undervalued due to a lack of historic prestige. 

The Wall Street Journal’s calculation methods aren’t inherently flawed. While they place a massive emphasis on economic outcomes, some of their metrics, such as years to pay off debt, can offer great insight to potential students.  However, The Wall Street Journal’s score significantly devalues a school’s diversity and learning environment, which account for 10% and 20% of a school’s score respectively. Most metrics are also always in flux. Some US News rankings are still influenced by test scores, and US News has stopped evaluating first-generation success and has opted to favor performance of students on Federal Pell Grants.  The sheer variety of indicators used by various ranking institutions, demonstrate what makes a “great school” is subjective. 

I am not here to debate the best set of metrics to universally evaluate all universities and colleges for all students. In fact, I find general college rankings incredibly unproductive; offering future students minimal information and creating unnecessary anxiety. I am confident most Wellesley students are deeply familiar with the pressure to attend a school that is respectable, a standard that has come to mean “high enough” ranked. Rankings are becoming guides not just on the best schools,  but on what students should value. If the most influential factor in a school’s ranking is their students’ economic outcomes, the brightest students are told they are best served to become businessmen and accountants. While we need great entrepreneurs, we also need great teachers, scientists, community organizers, and doctors. My greatest advice to future college applicants is to look beyond the rankings. Use publicly available information, such as the common data set, and make your own evaluation about what schools may be right for you. I am not saying that Babson isn’t a great school full of promising students. However, in my opinion, Babsons’ ranking as a Top two school provides a compelling case for everything that is wrong with college rankings.

Contact the editor(s) responsible for this story: Caitlin Donovan

“Wait, I thought they were fighting over who supported Israel more?”

This quote was in response to the presidential debate between both major candidates. While this column generally intends to explore specific statements related to the election, this question is more nuanced than it first appears. On the one hand, Trump has historically offered significantly less criticism of the state of Israel. While he has expressed a desire for the violence in Palestine to end, most of his criticism of Israel arises from its failure to end the war quickly and for “losing the PR battle”.  Harris, on the other hand, has made much more substantial criticisms of Israel. She has publicly called for a ceasefire throughout her campaign and at the most recent Presidential debate.  However, Harris has also continually noted Israel’s “right to defend itself”, a phrase which has functionally come to mean that she will not hold Israel accountable for its violence against Palestinians. Harris’ continued support for Israel is also underlined by her continued support of President Biden’s decision to supply bombs to Israel. Harris has defended her support for Israel by claiming the United States would do the same if put in Israel’s position; however, considering the way history now reflects on the United States’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11, this is a weak support to stand on.  

It is critical to note that I still believe that the reelection of Trump would be fundamentally destructive to the negotiation of a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine and justice for the Palestinian people.  Trump has continually expressed unwavering support for Israel’s actions, and his first term was marked by a United States that pulled away from leadership on the international stage. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the current vice president should escape meaningful criticism for her failures to condemn the genocide of the Palestinian people. 

As always, if you are a member of the Wellesley community and have thoughts on the presidential election or on this most recent article, Please fill out this form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSef4OPkKeLkFOmbzIIouB5Jk6LIVccyS20RFNx17EtBJDo58g/viewform?usp=sf_link

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Riannon Last

“Majoring in transgender operation on illegal immigrants” – Sidechat

This quote was perhaps one of the most engaging and upvoted sidechat posts immediately following the debate. It is in reference to a controversial quote from former President Trump who alleged that Harris intends to “do transgender operations on illegal aliens who are in prison.” The quote requires significant context, as it likely refers to Harris’s response to an ACLU questionnaire addressing the rights of incarcerated individuals. Regardless, it is refreshing to see a large quantity of Wellesley students actively engaging with political media, finding humor amidst the seriousness and showcasing the critical self-awareness shaped by a liberal arts education. 

“Well that was a very … political answer” – Overheard at PSMC viewing in PUNE

As the debate shifted towards foreign policy, the moderators questioned the Vice President on her plans to end the violence in Gaza. The ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people and the United States’ continued support for Israel has haunted Harris’s campaign, and it is a commonly cited concern amongst undecided Wellesley students. During the debate, Harris tried to strike a middle ground between denouncing the violence against Palestinians and maintaining support for the state of Israel. She used politically charged language to describe the “slaughter” of innocent Israelis on Oct. 7, but she also called for an immediate ceasefire. Moreover, she affirmed Palestinians’ “right to self-determination” while also upholding Israel’s “right to defend itself” against Hamas — a stance that many Wellesley students watching the debate in the packed Cazenove TV room found paradoxical, hollow and disingenuous. In the end, to the dismay of many unconvinced of Harris’ sincerity in supporting Palestine, her answer didn’t mark a significant change in her strategy or a signal a departure from the stance of the Biden Administration. So, while she likely maintains support of AIPAC, the answer fell flat to many Wellesley students and others concerned about the United States’s continual supply of weapons to Israel. 

“We need a Wellesley Republican Club” – Sidechat

This post faced significant backlash from the Wellesley community on Sidechat, but it presents an interesting question of how one might understand political diversity — even in an election season as contentious and high-stake as this one. Wellesley does not currently have an active Republican student chapter. It is frequently discussed how Secretary of State and notable Wellesley alum, Hillary Clinton, was a former member of the Wellesley Republican club. Many have argued that the present Wellesley community harbors significantly less political diversity compared to other points in its political history. However, these statements require context. On the one hand, while Wellesley campus definitely leans liberal, it is also true that more conservative Wellesley students will often isolate themselves to smaller political circles as they know their views will be rejected by most of the campus community. Additionally, the massively negative reaction towards the desire for a Wellesley Republican club is likely exaggerated due to the false and incredibly harmful statements made by the Republican Party’s nominee. As to the potential for a Wellesley Republican club, many on this campus would benefit from increased exposure to different political ideas;  however, it seems difficult to imagine a conservative org on this campus that would not also act as a safe haven for racism, elitism, homophobia and transphobia. 

“I think she’s going to win … he went off the rails” – a construction worker at the KSC pool 

Both major media outlets and the larger Wellesley community seem to agree that Vice President Kamala Harris offered a good performance during the presidential debate. She was successfully able to goad and push Trump towards incoherent rants. This success has also been reflected in the polls where Harris has either maintained her lead or seen a slight boost. Regardless, many on the Wellesley campus, including these writers, are optimistic about the Vice President’s chances come November.

Contact the editor(s) responsible for this story: Caitlin Donovan