Fordham University College Republicans may determine an endorsement for this year’s presidential election. (Courtesy of Fordham College Republicans)
By Ben St. Clair
Like voters across the country, Fordham’s College Republicans are torn. In March, an email from then President Sebastian Albrecht, FCRH ’17, to current and prospective club members described members’ concerns with the possible nomination of Donald J. Trump.
“Many of our club members have approached me, saying that they cannot support Trump in the general election and would rather vote for Hillary Clinton,” wrote Albrecht at the time.
Now with Mr. Trump’s nomination in July and just under seven weeks before the election, the club’s executive board must decide whether or not to endorse Mr. Trump’s campaign. According to conversations with three of the four members, the board is divided in their support of Mr. Trump and over whether or not to issue an endorsement.
“While the e-board remains split in our personal opinions about this election year, I believe that we will agree to put forth a vote to our club to determine an endorsement,” said Colton Hillman, GSB ’19 and treasurer of the club.
Albrecht, who now works as the volunteer director for the state of New York for libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, recalled that only a few of the clubs’ members were supporting Trump when he sent that email last year.
Since then, the attitudes of club members have changed. According to club vice president Matt Johnson, FCRH ’17, an informal vote during the club’s first meeting revealed that approximately half of those who attended planned to vote for Mr. Trump.
Hillman, who said he has supported Trump since December, said he had he brought up the issue during a College Republicans executive board meeting earlier this semester. “Trump’s the nominee; we should vote for Trump,” Hillman said in an interview. “We need to be united.”
Former club President Luke Zaro, FCRH ’16, could not recall if the club had endorsed a candidate during the 2012 election, when he served as a freshman liaison.
Current College Republicans President Robert Gray, FCRH ’17, declined to comment for this article, but Gray has recently been critical of Mr. Trump on his Facebook page.
“Trump is absolutely doomed and the GOP needs to cut its losses now and re-direct all available resources to saving what is left of our down-ballot,” Gray wrote in a Sept. 13 post.
According to a review by The Fordham Ram, the club’s constitution does not stipulate how it would endorse a candidate. But members of the executive board said that the process would involve a vote of members present at one of the club’s meetings — after the executive board came to a consensus.
Johnson said he remains hesitant to move forward with the endorsement process. Both he and Secretary Sebastian Balasov, GSB ’18, expressed concern over the possible response from Fordham’s administration, citing the school’s reaction in 2012 when the club attempted to bring conservative commentator Ann Coulter on campus.
“We all know that Trump has said some very controversial things in the past, some things that may not align with ‘Fordham’s Jesuit values,’” Balasov said in an email.
The proposed Coulter event generated controversy among the student body, with 2,100 people signing an online petition in opposition. In a statement on Nov. 9, 2012, Reverend Joseph M. McShane, S.J., president of the university, did not forbid the club from hosting Ms. Coulter, but expressed concern with the club’s invitation.
“To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement,” McShane wrote in the statement at the time.
The controversy generated national and local news coverage and eventually led to an impeachment hearing for two executive board members, according to Zaro. The final vote fell short of impeachment, Zaro said.
“It certainly wasn’t a great moment for the club in any respect,” Zaro told The Fordham Ram in a recent interview.
In an interview, Albrecht said his main goal during the Republican primary earlier this year had been to maintain the club’s unity.
In an effort not to exclude members, Albrecht said he did not consider endorsing a candidate. “It was always the most important thing to keep the club together,” he said.
Albrecht said he now worries that an endorsement could lead to conflict among the club’s members, and he commended Gray for his handling of what he considered a “difficult situation.”
Both Johnson and Balasov, though, said they doubt the club will move forward with the endorsement process. Club member and supporter of Trump Paul Ingrassia, FCRH ’17, also does not think an endorsement is likely.
“While I strongly urge the club to swallow their pride and support Trump, realistically I do not believe this is going to happen,” Ingrassia said in an email last week.
But Hillman plans to push for a vote. “I’ll make sure they do [call a vote],” he said in an interview. “We can’t be afraid to say we like Trump.”
Regardless of whether or not the club moves to endorse Trump, Johnson and Balasov said they hope to maintain a welcoming atmosphere at meetings this semester.
“We’re trying to be as neutral as possible,” Johnson said of the executive board’s attitude. Added Balasov, “We welcome all types of discussion.”
Fordham’s other partisan political club, the College Democrats, plan to endorse a candidate this election, according to club President Thomas Palumbo, FCRH ’17, who said that he anticipates the club will back the Democratic nominee and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
For the College Republicans, this election cycle remains different from the last presidential election. “It was pretty much assumed that the Republicans were for Romney,” Zaro said in an interview.
At least one e-board member wishes this election were similar. “I would much prefer this to be a 2012,” Johnson said.
[…] Fordham University College Republicans told the Fordham Ram that they were split with regards to their members’ support for Trump, and they have yet to […]
As a subsidiary of a non-profit university, neither the College Democrats nor the College Republicans chapters can legally endorse a candidate without running into problems with USG, Dean of Students, etc.
That hasn’t stopped any other chapter in the country.
Also look up this Hillman kids’ Twitter he’s a riot
It’s honestly disturbing that half of the club is supporting a unqualified, racist, xenophobic nutjob. Not surprising at Fordham, but disturbing still. The Harvard Republican club had the courage to refuse endorsing Trump, why can’t Fordham’s have the same courage?
There are reasons to oppose immigration from poor countries that have nothing to do with race or racism. The United States is not a successful nation because we really happened to hit the nail on the head with the Constitution, because of exceptionally fertile soil or any other absolute and immutable quality. The people in a nation, with their cultures and beliefs, are the real “constitution” of any place. From them upwards flow the laws, opinions and industry that govern and shape the land and define its policies and behaviors as a whole. If you would consider it cruel to deny someone entry to the United States from a foreign land, then you must also believe that life in the US is, by some measure, better than it is elsewhere. And if this is the case, because the people in the nation determine its character and laws, you are also implicitly agreeing that the people who constitute our nation are, in some way, better than those that comprise the other. This line of reasoning can certainly be used to reject immigrants purely on the basis of race, if one believes that white people are inherently “better” in some way than nonwhites, but the idea in and of itself is not racist. If your instinct is to recoil at such a proposition, then consider a thought experiment:
Imagine that tomorrow, by some work of magic, every person in America woke up with the same political, religious and ideological opinions as are common in Syria– but all else stayed the same. This means that the average American is now Muslim, believes in sharia law, approves of public executions as a punishment for crimes and thinks that women should wear burkas. Our American ideas about what freedom and justice mean would be lost. How long do you think our governmental and social structure, laws, media institutions, schools and even the Constitution itself would endure in their present state if such an ideological shift took place? And would you still think America was a place you would want to immigrate to?
If it sounds like I am trying to imply that Syria is evil or something, know that I am not. I know that you cannot assume that EVERY person in Syria believes those types of things, and in fact, I am actually fine with different nations being wildly different in their character. They should be able to think anything they want and have a place to agree. I also know that Syria is a bit of an extreme example, but every nation has its own set of ideological and cultural beliefs and none of them are exactly the same as ours.
My point, though, is that immigration from culturally distinct nations does undoubtedly change the character of ours. Immigrants vote, they have a say in what’s on TV, and they contribute to the “national conversation” of what behaviors are and are not acceptable. A slow trickle of immigrants from anywhere are likely to assimilate and adopt our values, but the faster they come, the more our cultural values will change to encompass theirs. Ultimately, if there is something about American culture that makes our country worth immigrating to in the first place, then that also means we should have an interest in preserving it. Whether or not you think we have enough to spare is an opinion you’re entitled to have, but writing off everyone who disagrees on that topic with some buzzwords like “racist” and “xenophobic” is both intellectually dishonest and divisive.
It doesn’t say half of the club “is supporting,” it says half “planned to vote for Mr. Trump.” “Support” and “voting for” are not interchangeable terms.
Unfortunately for the holdouts, the Republican party of open borders, Wall Street alliances and international destabilization is dead. The people of America have spoken, and they will no longer accept a two-party system in which the only choice to make is how cool they are with the last 20 years of liberal propaganda. The anti-trump “conservatives” have conserved nothing, and the fact that so many of them are jumping ship at the sight of a candidate who actually seeks to roll back some of the recent progressive cultural victories of the 20th century rather than stymie them just proves how little choice voters really had before. I don’t expect many college students to agree with Trump’s message, but third-worldists who love wars for oil should probably just join the College Democrats already so they can stop deluding themselves.
So, you’re saying because people are tired of the two-party system, they should fall in behind the Republican nominee or the Democrats? How exactly is that rejecting the two-party system?