College students are often the youngest demographic of eligible voters — a fact that was proved this week. Incidents of racial hatred following President Obama’s re-election — already reported at the University of Mississippi and Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia — can now be joined by an alleged altercation that happened at the University. College students, as well as administrators and leaders of political organizations, should take care not to allow the emotions of an election to spill out into actual violence. Although issues are contentious, and frustrations legitimate, this is no excuse for charged language to be hurled against fellow citizens.
The University of Mississippi was the location for the most widespread of this post-election melodrama. There, nearly 500 students gathered in front of the student union in protest. According to the University of Mississippi, there were two arrests made, epithets hurled and racial language used. The University of Mississippi Chancellor Daniel W. Jones was forced to release a statement that chastised over-exaggerated accounts of the protest, but nevertheless admitted the students’ mistakes and criticized them accordingly.
The event at Hampden-Sydney took place Wednesday morning. Again students — upset with the election results — yelled slurs and attacked the minority student union by throwing bottles. Hampden-Sydney’s President Christopher Howard, who is African-American, wrote a statement in response as members of the college convened in a town hall setting to discuss the violent affray.
A similar occurrence allegedly took place at our University, according to Taylor Gist, a fourth-year College student. Tuesday night, outside Trinity Irish Pub, Gist – an African-American student – says she was called an epithet before cigarettes were thrown at her by two men. The incident took place at 12:30 a.m., one hour after the College Republicans’ reservation for a watch party at Trinity had ended.
In all these cases it is important not to tie the individual perpetrators to larger political groups. Though, demographically, Mississippi is a Republican state, and the alleged incident at the University took place outside the location where an event was hosted by the College Republicans, it would be unjust to suggest the actions of a few reflect the attitude of an entire political party. And even though Hampden-Sydney is a private, all-boys school, the outrage that took place there has also happened at public universities.
The fact is that President Barack Obama’s ethnicity is still a topic of scrutiny for many bigoted citizens; there may be others who have no qualms against the president’s race — only his policies – but nevertheless in the fervor of an election loss feel incited to make remarks that are hateful. Both Republicans and Democrats are in a position to be a model for students by dismissing such language as unworthy and disgraceful to the political process.
In contrast to the juvenility of college students, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney accepted his defeat with grace and humility. He called President Obama to offer congratulations while students nationwide called fellow students unacceptable names. It’s worth pointing out that free speech gives us the right to say many things, chief among them the right to respond. Students and groups at the University and elsewhere need to adequately distance themselves from such episodes rather than being complicit in silence.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: The myth of the “two Universities”
By Dan Freed | 10 minutes agoThere’s a reason basketball has a color commentator in addition to play-by-play commentary — and it is the same reason why Opinion sections exist.
PARTING SHOT: Work that never felt like work
By Leon Arceo | YesterdayWhenever I list the titles I held during my time at the paper, I’m often met with surprise — or even sympathy — for taking on so much. But the truth is, it never felt like a burden.
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | May 2, 2025Forcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
