While consulting members of the current student body, there were many positive remarks, the most memorable being, “Huzzah, all men have been abolished,” and “Long live the clit!” When we walk into a public bathroom and get flashed by a flaccid penis, fear not, for it is now considered female genitalia. There will be no masculine energy lingering on campus. The atmosphere will be made fantastical by the presence of loving female same-sex relationships. We will reside in a world where every American is a lesbian and women are no longer oppressed. This will be a very bright and promising reality.

But now, Wellesley College must rally to prepare for the Class of 2030. Over four million babies were born on American soil in 2008, meaning four million domestic females will be eligible to apply to Wellesley College in the following year. Regarding “conception,” 132 million babies have been born worldwide during the most recent year. Seeing that Wellesley currently accepts domestic and international students, 132 million people will be eligible to apply to Wellesley in the upcoming years. Admissions will be buried in applications, sifting through to find the ideal candidates. This may result in an acceptance rate below 0.000001%, making Wellesley College the most selective colligate institution in America. Suck on that, US News.

Despite growing up under completely different educational systems, students around the world compete for a spot in elite American colleges as a means of accessing higher-quality education and socioeconomic mobility. Many students aspire to work in the US after graduation, as it is the forefront in many fields, not to mention higher salaries. For students from countries like China and Russia, staying in the US also means enjoying various freedoms of expression, which in their home country are privileges, not rights. 

Working after graduation usually hinges upon the H1B visa, which is obtained via lottery. Luckily, international students have a bit of time. After graduation, F-1 visa students are granted one year of “optional practical training,” or OPT, which requires working full-time in an area directly related to their area of study. STEM students (which, at Wellesley, luckily includes Economics) can apply for a 24-month extension, effectively giving them three chances in the visa lottery. Historically, the number of visas granted is capped at 65,000 (with an additional 20,000 for graduate students) per year, with the odds oscillating between 25% and 40%. 

With a Donald Trump presidency term, this predictability is a lost luxury. Looking back to his first term, the “Buy American and Hire American” executive order triggered H1B denial rates to surge from 13% in 2017 to 24% in 2018. To international students, denial means they must leave the US within 60 days, regardless of whether they can find a job elsewhere with similar pay and required skill sets. The real fear lies in the policies that could potentially be passed this term. In 2015, Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) proposed a bill that entirely eliminated the OPT and required a minimum salary of $110,000, which fortunately has been abandoned after the 2016 elections. Trump recently  appointed Kristi Noem to lead the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees  the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Noem, who was an opponent of COVID-19 safety measures and denies climate change, doesn’t seem too friendly towards international students, as evidenced by her firm adherence to the MAGA movement. 

Alternatively, some students secure jobs that provide visa sponsorship, where the employer provides documentation that justifies why hiring an immigrant worker is necessary. However, these positions tend to be highly competitive seats in large multinational companies, concentrated in software and finance. In anticipation of tightening H1B approvals, international students must either secure a sponsored job, or at least declare a STEM major to buy two years of time. Finding a third country — such as the U.K. — is an alternative for those who are determined not to return to their home country. Considering that liberal arts colleges have limited recognition as prestigious institutions outside of the US, the Wellesley degree loses much of its power. In the end, college is no longer a safe space to explore, but a four-year grace period before the F-1 bomb explodes.

After the election, I was enraged, betrayed by the land of opportunity that I had entrusted my future to. Anger sizzled into bitterness and finally, disillusionment. As a non-immigrant, the country had almost zero obligations towards me, even less than that towards refugees. Realizing I had gambled my parents’ hard-earned money for my own future, I settled upon a politely suppressed fear.

While the election conversation at Wellesley focuses on abortion, the loss of trans rights, and protection of the families of undocumented immigrants, one in eight students face the uncertain future of their ability to live and work in the US post graduation. Fully paying and often well-dressed, international students can seem like a rather privileged group, almost undeserving of occupying the post-election discourse, but they certainly face a kind of existential threat. With limited knowledge of partisan forces and no affiliation to particular states, it can be hard for international students to participate in election conversations in the first place. Appreciative of the good intentions of the Community for Political Engagement (CPE) and Slater International Center, I skipped the self-care conversations. Tucking my coloring books and half-finished scarf into the bottom drawer, I turned to LinkedIn, determined to outsmart the man who called my family carriers of the “kung flu.”

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

This comes as former President Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday, Nov. 6 to become the 47th president of the United States following one of the most polarized presidential races in the nation’s history.

The survey, sent to all students at the College on Nov. 5, asked questions about students’ voting behavior, political ideologies, civic engagement habits and general understanding on the state of politics. This election is most students’ first time casting a ballot to vote for a presidential candidate. We collected 291 responses where 284 of respondents are registered to vote in the US.

More than 80% of respondents voted by mail or absentee ballot and 13% voted in person. Six percent of respondents couldn’t vote, citing reasons including failure to register in time and ballots getting lost or denied.

Nearly nine out of 10 respondents voted for Harris. Still, when asked if they felt this candidate aligned with their policy preferences or political ideologies, only 71% said Harris’s platform was the best fit, while 18% favored third-party candidates instead.

Furthermore, when asked whether respondents felt represented by the current candidate running for office, only 27.4% said yes, while 37.5% said no, and 35.1% gave a mixed answer. This division suggests that many registered respondents feel their views are only partially or not at all reflected in the candidate's platform.

The survey additionally asked if they believed their votes would make a difference to the outcome of the 2024 election: 47% of respondents said no, 24.2% said maybe, and only 21% felt confident that their vote could make a difference. 

To put this into perspective, just 9.5% of respondents live in the seven key swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All respondents that casted a vote in the key battlegrounds voted for Harris, even though Trump ended up winning six of them. 

Nearly 40% of the respondents were registered to vote in Massachusetts, New York, California, New Jersey and Texas, where general electoral outcomes are predictable given their historical leanings toward Democrats or Republicans. 

A mostly liberal campus

When asked about political ideology, 57% of respondents registered to vote identified as “very left-leaning,” followed by 34% of respondents who say they were “somewhat left-leaning.” Only 1.7% of respondents identified as “somewhat right-leaning.”

We also surveyed respondents on how they civically engaged with the election or stayed informed about their voting decisions.

Nearly half of the total respondents said they did not engage in campaign activities. 39% posted on social media or talked to friends about the election and 10% volunteered. Most respondents relied on news media to inform their voting decisions, while 21% of respondents said they relied on social media the most. 

Concerns and fears 

Out of the 75 anonymous comments submitted to the News, we found a predominant sentiment of fear regarding Trump’s second term. Students especially expressed concerns over the future of American democracy and reproductive rights under the threat of a conservative agenda.

“My rights as a woman, as a low-income student and citizen, as the child and friend of immigrants, as someone dependent on accessible and affordable health and welfare systems, and much, much more, are immediately impacted by Trump's policies,” said Sofia Dewey ’27. 

Over 75% of respondents already felt very or somewhat unsatisfied with the current direction of the country. 

Concurrently, a wave of racist texts were sent in mass across nine states after Trump’s win, prompting an FBI investigation. Trump has consistently used racist rhetoric throughout his campaign. 

"I've heard from my friends that there's been a huge uptick in racism, sexism, transphobia, they've been experiencing just in the past couple of days,” said Shivani Swaminathan ‘28. “It’s not a path that I think this country should be going on.” 

Lyla Ma ’28 is a student from Shanghai, China. Ma had never experienced a democratic election in her home country, so she assumed she could watch the election in a passive manner. She realized quickly it was much more than that to her. 

“The result was heartbreaking to me; not only does it greatly affect my immigration prospect, which is gloomy at this point, but it also shows that a large part of the world is growing more conservative. I am indeed unsure and scared of what is to come, but I find comfort knowing that I have siblings here with me,” Ma said.

While most international students are only citizens of their home country, some Wellesley international students are dual US citizens. Meera Baswan ’27 is a dual Canada-US citizen, and this was her first time voting in US elections. As she reflected on the election results, she was constantly struck by the implications of a Trump presidency for Canada-US relations and the difference between the direction American and Canadian political systems are heading in. 

“Given Trump’s infamous protectionist policies, I’m concerned about how his presidency will affect trade relations between Canada and the US, especially with his plan to impose 10% tariffs on all imported goods,” Baswan explained. “The policy … would both increase the prices of goods here in the US and negatively hit the Canadian economy, which relies on the US as its biggest trade partner.” 

She’s also worried about the social impacts of an increasing ideological shift to the right in America, with more radical right-wing rhetoric from Republicans and even a shift to the center from the Democrats this election season. Baswan compared this to Canada’s political system which also has a right-wing party (Conservatives) and left-wing party (Liberals), but the Conservative party in Canada is arguably closer in social issues to the Democrats than the Republicans. The Conservatives, while fiscally conservative, overall have a generally liberal stance on abortion rights, immigration and diversity. In contrast, the Republican party in America has espoused extreme rhetoric on restricting abortion access and attacking immigrant groups in the United States, often using inflammatory language along the way. 

“Throughout the next four years, we will see how Trump’s presidency will affect Canada-US relations for the better or worse, and the growing split between the Canadian political system and the US political system,” Baswan concluded. 

For Sanika Merchant ’25, who has grown up in India as a US citizen, this election season was particularly significant. It was her first time being physically present in the US during election season, and it helped her realize the level of responsibility and influence she has as a voter.

“In addition, I made great efforts to properly familiarize myself with the different candidates’ policies and be as involved in election-related events as possible,” Merchant pointed out.

For Merchant, election night was “emotional” and “overwhelming” following her expectation that it would be a close race. When the results were announced, it compelled her to think about the socio-political implications for both herself as well as close friends and family both in the United States and abroad. Expanding on these sentiments, Merchant described being “cognizant of potential policy changes in this term that could impact her family’s ability to come to the US from India in the long-term.” 

As an Economics major, Merchant also pointed out potential economic implications of the new US presidency. “Policy changes, such as immigration and international tariffs, could pose serious implications for inflation in the US. Given our recovery from sky-high inflation during the pandemic, I think this is an important matter to consider.” 

For many Wellesley students, the recent Presidential election brought with it a myriad of emotions and prompted a rethinking of the social, political and economic impact that policies in the upcoming term would bring about. As Wellesley moves on post-election, it remains to be seen what the implications of a Trump presidency will have on policy and rhetoric that affects them, and how they might make their voices heard — both on campus and as students in the changing US political landscape.

Image credit: AP Photo, Jeffrey Phelps

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Phoebe Rebhorn and Diya Khanna

For one political science course, POL1 210: Campaigns and Elections, taught by Professor Maneesh Arora, the 2024 election was a direct part of the course curriculum.

The course description for POL1 210 notes that the course addresses issues relating to the election and its long campaign cycle including  “the impact of voter apathy, civic education, and the interplay of national and local politics on the health of American democracy.”

 Students in the class had assignments related to the 2024 election.

“We’ve been looking at voter behavior and how it’s influenced by personal factors like personal identities and political factors like socioeconomic/political conditions,” said Eliza Karim ’27, a student enrolled in the course.

Semester readings have included academic studies alongside articles that delve into various factors of the 2024 election and each major candidate’s campaign tactics. Students in POL1 210 also participated in a nationwide competition called Election Madness in which players compete to accurately predict the winners of the 23 closest local elections and the 2024 presidential race. Students were assigned one of those local races to research in-depth and present to the class, and all researched the presidential race. Classmates’ findings were used to submit picks for the winners on the website. Finally, students submitted two research papers by election day — one for each race they looked at.

On Thursday, Nov. 7, the course met for the first time since the election was called. 

“The class was pretty obviously dejected post-election.” said Karim. “We just discussed how we felt about everything for about the first half of class. The conversation was pretty casual and it was just good to get some of those thoughts off our chests.” 

Other political science professors also prepared to cover the 2024 election. Professor Jennifer Chudy is teaching both POL1 337: Seminar: Race and American Politics and POL1 200: American Politics this semester.

“I had a lot of election readings early in the semester, so that by the time the election came around, students would have some political science tools to be able to understand the results,” said Chudy.

Professor Christopher Candland teaches POL 123: Logic and Rhetoric for Political Analysis and POL2 204: Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment.

“I asked that we think about ways to help protect one another from harm,” Candland said in an email statement to the News.

In the English department, Professor Kelly Rich started ENG 334: Law in Literature on Wednesday, Nov. 7 with an activity where words were written on the board to represent peoples’ feelings about the election. Students were released for 20 minutes to write a journal entry about their feelings about the election. 

Professor Rich tied conversation about When the Emperor was Divine, a book about Asian American internment during WWII, back to the election and how everyday actions can be seen as a form of resistance. Professor Rich ended class by sharing the internet browser extension called “Make America Kittens Again,” which replaces Trump’s face with a picture of a kitten for all news sources and online websites. 

On Friday, Professor Smitha Radhakrishan asked her SOC 108: Thinking Global: An Introduction to Sociology class the question, “What is the world that we want to build?”

While initially reluctant to share, her students shared about the grief they were feeling, particularly in regards to how the election would influence their home states. 

As professors across Wellesley create spaces for students to process the reasons for the election results, Chudy offers some advice as a political scientist.

“There’s so many efforts to try to understand what happened and pointing to all these different factors with the candidates in the campaigns, but … you know, don’t miss the forest for the trees. Kind of keep your eye on these macro conditions,” Chudy said. “And that seemed to be salient to many students as they tried to reason through the results.”

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Sazma Sarwar, Galeta Sandercock, and Ruby Barenberg

Garber, a religion and political science double major, has been working at a Political Action Committee (PAC) called Rural Ground Game for quite a few years now, and it has significantly influenced her understanding of rural American politics. The PAC provides ground support to rural Democratic campaigns and community leaders in Virginia, where Garber is from, and they focus on the fact that the rural communities impact elections in significant ways. They are dedicated to ground work and community organizing for Democrats in the Appalachia area especially, and Garber explains that their work is focused on building connections first and foremost.

Garber says, “We cannot expect to be seen as relevant or supportive of the best interest of our communities if we neglect to directly and consistently engage with them, listen and ask questions, [and] learn and work collaboratively on solutions to the challenges they face.”
Garber’s specific job — which she began in 2021 — is a special project and youth coordinator. This means that she works with rural Democratic campaigns to help them engage with young people on modern platforms. Garber’s main goal is to help them build capacity and a better system that helps them more effectively utilize their community resources, often through virtual formats that might help campaigns and committees reach young voters.

Garber works in all rural areas of Virginia, where she was born and raised, but her work is based in the Shenandoah Valley. Garber has a deep connection to the area; it is part of her heritage and the community she grew up in. She explained that Appalachia is the poorest region in the U.S., and people in rural areas seriously struggle with healthcare access, infrastructure, education, broadband access, energy access, economic opportunities, news access, agriculture,  feeling effects of climate change like extreme drought and more.  She emphasizes showing up for all rural communities in the area, each one unique, and says, “that’s how you build credibility and that’s how you build trust.”

“The consequences of leaving rural communities behind has been unacceptable for a long time now, but have now, especially for the 2024 election, truly shown themselves to be electorally invaluable,” she says.

For the 2024 election, which held not only a presidential run but also Senate and House races for Virginia, Garber helped create video ads, signs, print materials, billboards, newspaper ads and much more, all centered around empowering rural communities. Because her biggest passion is talking about the issues that matter to rural voters and hearing what they find most important in today’s political climate, Garber ran Rural Ground Games texting program, which allows her to reach over 100,000 people a minute.
“I know a lot of people at Wellesley probably received some really annoying texts. I promise mine are not annoying, and I’m here to talk about values that matter to communities,” Garber joked.

She helped craft and send texts to voters in Virginia, encouraging and educating on the progressive views of candidates in Virginia. She also participated in something called deep canvassing, where door-to-door volunteers speak extensively with community members about what’s on their mind and how they can be supported, spending longer at each door than most in normal canvassing. In this election, Garber’s PAC continued to put their focus on the rural, less-contacted areas of Virginia, emphasizing how voters’ needs were getting prioritized.

“Every person deserves that because every person deserves dignity, regardless of their ZIP Code,” Garber explained.
She had hoped for a lot of Democratic wins in this election, and she had also been hopeful for a Democratic shift in rural communities. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the outcome. Garber explains that while Rural Ground Game saw it in a few places, it was clear that there’s a lot more work to be done on the national and local level.

“I think post-election, I was numb for quite a while, and very much struggled with the reality of what we’re going to have to live through for the next four years,” Garber said. But she’s not giving up; she knows that there are wonderful people in her communities that are going to fight ignorance and bigotry vehemently. She encourages avoiding the “pit of despair” that seems so easy to fall into after the election, and she has been trying to remind herself of the wonderful people she talks to every single day, all of which support Progressive views and are still willing to defend them.

So, why does Garber think the election outcome was the way it was? She thinks that the Democratic Party needs to heavily consider a few things. One, she thinks that they ought to be fighting more in rural communities, because Garber points out that their aggressive turnout can drown out turnout in urban suburban areas very, very quickly. She also thinks that the Democratic campaigns need to expand beyond working just with big national movements, and put more emphasis into supporting local Democratic campaigns like Rural Ground Game does. She believes this is the best way to reach rural communities, a demographic that plays a big role in the outcome of recent elections.

Garber also cites the economy and the way it is presented to voters as a huge issue. She says voters receive economic messaging every day, and that the Democrats don’t always have the best counter to negative economic messaging against them. She also warns that this may cause a significant indoctrination of Gen Z men, something that she says has become evident in this past election cycle, as well as a rural belief in Conservative fiscal policy.

Beyond that, Garber believes that Democrats “really need to do an intentionally better job at forging relationships and connections, because I think our two sides have become so isolated from one another that we failed to create those meaningful relationships that change people.” She says that she is over the blame game, too, and that Democrats do not have to shift to the center; they just need to connect to more people. Garber worries that Democrats have become so isolated in a political bubble that doesn’t allow them to create those relationships that will change minds and lives — something that, for her, goes well beyond the election.

Garber’s work isn’t done: Rural Ground Game believes in a year-round ground support campaign. She says that this election has shown her that that kind of work is even more crucial than ever before, and she is empowered to continue fighting for Democratic policies and education on Democratic policy in communities.

“We can’t just rely on a certain candidate. We have to work 24/7; we have to show up for others. We have to be in a community and we have to care for every single person no matter what, because it’s the right thing to do, [and] because every single person has inherent value,” Garber emphasizes.

She said she’s feeling hopeful, because of how many people she knows are already ready to start putting up that fight. She knows many will be devastated by the outcome of this election, but they aren’t allowing themselves to wallow in that despair; they are continuing to advocate for communities and democratic policies in rural areas.

She leaves with this: “every single person can organize and get involved in their community.” Garber says the most meaningful work you can do sometimes it’s simply building relationships with others, especially people you love and care for. This can create a community that pushes Democratic values and progressive thinking forward. There is no easy way to fix the problems America is currently facing, but Garber says that sometimes the best fights are the hardest ones. She loves her community. She loves the people in her community and she thinks they’re worth fighting for, and she encourages everyone to join.

“And if you don’t know how to organize, you don’t know where to start, you don’t know what identity it is that you want to focus your organizing on, I would really encourage you to come talk to me … it took me a long time to find my niche, but I love Appalachia more than anything, and I will fight for it.”

The views in this article reflect the personal beliefs of the interviewees, and are not necessarily representative of the organization they are a part of.

Image credit: Abby Garber

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Phoebe Rebhorn and Diya Khanna

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

Election betting markets raise a lot of questions about the integrity of American elections. Allowing for firms and individuals to bet millions of dollars on these contests increases the motivation to try to manipulate both the market as well as possibly, the factors impacting free and fair elections. Allowing the wealthy to bet on politics essentially puts pressure saying that the most influential firms and individuals in society are betting their prospects on the outcome of one candidate over another. Betting might provide some signal within the noise, but this signal has the power to suppress the voice and direction that the people might provide. 

That’s not to say that there aren’t “benefits” to election betting. In a time where public opinion polling has become increasingly difficult, due to the shift in consumer technology and reluctance on the part of many voters to pick up the phone and engage in long surveys, social scientists and pundits have had to turn to other sources to tease out this data. Given that individuals want their wagers to be fruitful, where they’re putting their money can help understand the broader sentiments of these gamblers. However, these individuals are also not at all indicative of most Americans and questions are being raised about how much looking at election betting trends can tell us about popular sentiment on the whole. 

Polling regulations and integrity issues aside, my fundamental issue with election betting speaks to the broader trend in our media and political ecosystem of seeing politics as a spectacle rather than a process through which real individuals’ lives are impacted and systemic change can be created. In this election, as well as the past few, we’ve seen a rise in the media trying to get the most controversial soundbites out and more focus on cringe and surface-level moments from candidates rather than an actual discussion of policy preferences. Election betting further adds to the increasingly prevalent approach of seeing politics as a game. I admit – I’ve discussed election betting extensively with some of my friends and a lot of people see it as a way to get something out of a process they are increasingly frustrated with and feel as if they have no say in. At the same time, most concerning is the fact that it’s the wealthy that are increasingly turning to these sites and gambles to not just hope but directly exercise financial power to influence the markets and hopefully get a gamble that will work for them. 

In a time where the wealthy are increasingly able to put their thumbs on the scale of politics and tilt a democratic process that should be in the hands of the people – Elon Musks’ $130 million towards Trump’s eventually successful campaign being a key example – it’s more important than ever that the government crackdown and ban election betting. The prevalent rampant neoliberal ideologies in our society that say that the wealthy should be able to abuse their financial power however they like have fundamentally shifted the legal window of what is acceptable, and it’s time that this worldview be rejected, that the wealthy can bet on whoever they like and exercise power in a process that should be equal for every citizen. 

The results from this Tuesday are bleak for this worldview – the wide range of policies on election betting, as well as every other financial regulation and election administration policy, is going to shift rightward for the next four years. The work of dismantling these ideologies might take decades. That’s why continued participation within the political system is so important. More than ever, Tuesday’s result shows that informed engagement is more important than ever and that these decisions are being fought out in every sector of our society. If we want power to go back to the people, politics needs to be seen as a sacred process and no longer a spectacle.

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

I am sorry that the rights of women, immigrants and international communities were placed under the rights of the rich. Tax breaks over a million, and tariffs on the foreign goods that supply our homes will take charge in heeding an ‘America First,’ goal.

I am sorry but ‘America First’ doesn’t mean ‘Americans’ First, for the only ones who are benefiting are those who were never in need. It is not the working class, academics or welfare users who get to give up less of their salary, but rather the men who lobbied for their own fruitful collection. Such inequities are a disgrace to everything we, as students, advocate for. 

I am sorry that America chose a man who has shown us how deep his racist, misogynistic and conspiratorial thoughts run in his administration. With a convicted felon, who far too often mongers with fear, in power, we must ask what cultural and political ties could possibly benefit from a Trump regime? 

While Wellesley students mourn the loss of progression, I would like to empathize with the recent words from US president, Joe Biden. Speaking on the results of this year’s Presidential election, Biden implores, “Setbacks are unavoidable, but giving up is unforgivable.” Eloquently put, for all to understand, we must remember the power that remains with us. 

Though we are undeniably disappointed and fearful of what changes could arise, we must remain mindful of our privilege as members of a liberal arts college. As Biden reminds us, it would be unforgivable if we were to succumb to the goals of a conservative government. The history of Wellesley College, in our commitment to empowering women, is not to be forgotten, but rather embraced. 

The names of Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton and Cokie Roberts are known by all, but our strength goes beyond those eye-catching names. Thousands of Wellesley students have poured their souls into advocacy, whether that was through the means of academia, government, volunteer or policy advising that have made strides in advancing the rights of women and minority groups. We are extraordinarily privileged to attend an institution with such prestige and recognition that allows for such strong advocacy to be heard. 

While not all of us may see our names on luxurious buildings, college benches, or in Alumnae Hall, I implore you to remain confident in your ability to fight for change. While we prepare for our right to autonomy to be put under fire by the federal government, it is astonishingly important that we continue a legacy of encouragement. 

I am sorry that despite the work of those who came before us, we still have to grapple for equity and equality. I am sorry that our time at Wellesley will be shaped by radicalism. I am sorry to all those who are feeling the depth of threat from our President-elect. This being said, I am not sorry when I ask you to continue in your efforts for what we know is right, for the good fight will always prevail.

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