With Postelection Tensions Running High, College Presidents Carefully Choose Their Words

For months, some students at Central Washington University had been telling James L. Gaudino that they were concerned about how the outcome of the presidential election might affect their personal safety and determine their future.

So once the election was over last week, Mr. Gaudino, the institution’s president, knew he had to write a message to the campus, a community that includes students in the groups of people whom Donald J. Trump, the president-elect, alienated during his campaign.

“Student concerns were the driving force behind my letter,” says Mr. Gaudino. “I wanted to write everyone and say, It’s going to be OK. We’re going to get through this.”

His letter noted the divisive rhetoric of the presidential campaign, added a personal note about how he lost sleep over the election, and underscored the institution’s commitment to “safety and security” for all students, while moving forward to “begin the process of healing as a nation.”

Yet Mr. Gaudino was keenly aware of the fine line he needed to walk while writing.

“I tried to be as nonpartisan as possible,” Mr. Gaudino says. “I checked with staff and asked them, Is there anyway that someone could point to a sentence or a word and say that’s anti-Trump or that’s pro-Clinton? I really just tried to focus it on the process and the rhetoric.”

A Stunning Upset

Donald J. Trump won election as the 45th president of the United States in an astonishing upset of Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who had long led her Republican rival in the polls. Here is extended coverage of the unexpected result of their contest, and news and commentary about the coming Trump administration.

• DeVos Moves From Wealthy Outsider to Cabinet Insider
• White Supremacist Describes Goals of His ‘Richard Spencer Danger Tour’ to Campuses
• What Does Betsy DeVos Have in Mind for Higher Ed?
• ‘We Want to Show President Trump That We’re Not Afraid’

Mr. Gaudino’s note is just one example of the difficult balancing act campus leaders have faced when they have talked publicly about the election results or its aftermath, which have included protests against the president-elect as well as incidents of hate speech and violence against minorities with references to Mr. Trump. Whether in messages online, emails to the campus, or speaking to a group of students, presidents are choosing their words carefully in the wake of what is widely regarded as the most divisive presidential campaign in recent years.

For the most part, the messages from college presidents about the election have covered similar ground — acknowledging that emotions are “running high,” promoting free speech while urging civility on campus, condemning acts of intolerance, assuring students of their safety, acknowledging students’ fears, and doubling down on commitments to inclusion and diversity on campus. Some of the same themes have appeared in statements presidents have made on campuses where there has been an incident of hate speech or an assault potentially prompted by Mr. Trump’s win.

But in these politically divisive days, a college president’s words are certain to be parsed by many, and there’s always a possibility of a backlash. At the University of Michigan, conservative students have rallied behind an open letter, titled #NotMyCampus, that criticizes President Mark S. Schlissel, saying his remarks at a postelection vigil have fueled an anti-Trump sentiment on campus and fostered hate toward students who support the president-elect. More than 350 people had signed the letter as of Tuesday night.

“Most presidential communications are a balancing act, especially in this political environment,” says Teresa V. Parrot, principal of TVP Communications, a company that counsels colleges. She says she understands that presidents want to address people on their campuses who feel that the outcome of the election has made them unsafe, but the message shouldn’t convey opinions that could contribute to some students feeling targeted because of their political views.

E. Gordon Gee, president of West Virginia University, said more than three decades of experience as a college leader informed the tone of the postelection message he wrote to his campus. He had planned to write a postelection letter, no matter who won.

“I think it’s very important for the university president to not take a political tone or an adversarial tone, but rather take a tone that sets a standard for respect and civility and understanding,” Mr. Gee said in an interview.

He used his message to paint a clear picture of what he expected the university to be in the future — “a safe supportive home for all” where people could have “respectful discourse regarding even the most contentious issues” — even as the path the nation would take remains unclear.

‘An Obligation’ to Speak Out

Not every college president has felt the need to weigh in, and that perplexes some who believe that’s exactly what higher-education leaders should be doing. Michael S. Roth, president of Wesleyan University, criticized Mr. Trump’s rhetoric during the presidential campaign — and what he thought was at stake if the real-estate developer won — on his blog and elsewhere. He urged other presidents to do the same and at times, he says, he wondered if he should have been writing even more about the election before its outcome.

“A university president doesn’t have to pretend to be an expert on everything, but I do have a platform through which I make a case for the values that I believe are central to the mission of our institution,” Mr. Roth says. “I think it’s an obligation of university leaders to speak out on issues in which they have a stake. I realize this view is not widely shared.”

People on both sides of the political spectrum at Wesleyan have disagreed with him, Mr. Roth says. But he’s also heard from students of color who tell him that, in his postelection message and other remarks, they’ve heard that Wesleyan supports them. “We’re not backing down from our commitment to those students to provide them a safe place,” he says.

Mr. Roth has urged members of the campus to “stay vigilant, because scapegoating and hatemongering is anathema to the mission of the university.” And that, he says, “includes scapegoating of conservative students.”

His hope, he says, is that people, especially students, remain engaged in the political process.

“I’m afraid that after these initial protests die down, that people will disengage,” Mr. Roth says. “This is exactly the time to not give up.”

Audrey Williams June is a senior reporter who writes about the academic workplace, faculty pay, and work-life balance in academe. Contact her at audrey.june@chronicle.com, or follow her on Twitter @chronaudrey.