Minutes before the start of the first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, a JSU student panel told about 250 spectators who had gathered for a big-screen viewing that it wanted candidates to address immigration reform, gender equality, policing, black-on-black crime and how they would support HBCUs.
But much to their chagrin, the candidates’ responses fell flat, were short on solutions or not discussed at all during the 90-minute debate that was broadcast live from Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.
The public presidential debate watch party was held Monday night inside the auditorium of Jackson State University’s College of Liberal Arts building and was jointly sponsored by the host college, Department of Speech and Theatre, Department of Political Science and the School of Journalism.
Tamarcus Lott, a senior speech major, said candidates for the leading parties “did not effectively tackle immigration.” Aside from executive orders issued by President Barack Obama, he had hoped for specifics on handling the influx of refugees seeking asylum.
“We need candidates to unravel their plans to stop criminals from entering our country and taking our jobs. … We need to know how immigrants are going to obtain citizenship because there needs to be a clear process,” he said. While constructing a wall might sound plausible, Lott doesn’t support the idea of taxpayers footing the bill, although Trump is demanding Mexico be responsible for the cost.
Ultimately, said Lott, the candidates “did not get into enough detail about immigration reform and securing our borders from terrorists. We will just have to stay tuned for the next debate for their plans on immigration.”
Another panelist, junior theater major Jaclyn Bush, heralded education and urged activism, especially via the ballot box. She wants voters to elect candidates willing to hammer crime. “If you don’t vote, you do not have a right to complain,” Bush said.
In addition, she said her concern is with black-on-black crime. “We must find a way to stop it,” said Bush, alarmed by the inner-city social crisis as well as the apparent deterioration of relations between police and communities. She said the candidates touched on crime only briefly, but she credited Clinton for addressing recent questionable shootings of black men in Tulsa, Okla., and Charlotte, N.C.
Junior political science major Lemuel Barney said neither of the candidates spoke of the importance of making sure law enforcement officers are psychologically fit for their roles as peacekeepers. He remains concerned about the rash of shootings of unarmed black men by police officers. Sadly, he said, neither Clinton nor Trump adequately tackled ways to “up the bar” on preventing lethal shootings.
He acknowledged that Clinton’s comments about support for officers and citizens sounded good but still lacked solutions for reducing fear and violence. Meanwhile, he said Trump was interested only in touting his recent endorsements from police groups rather than offering recommendations to stem the apparent rise of brutality.
The topic of HBCUs was not discussed by the candidates as wished for by SGA President Kendall Bunch. In general, he said, “I was disappointed in a lot about the debate. They acknowledged a lot of issues, but they did not offer their solutions.” He indicated that the candidates were distracted by personal attacks each lobbed against one another onstage. Bunch appeared especially bothered by the political rhetoric and lack of details for helping middle-class families such as his.
Le’Ana Rhett, a sophomore political science major, said Clinton, as the first woman candidate for a major party, did a far better job of addressing gender issues. Rhett said a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body, and she was especially pleased that Clinton zeroed in on pay equity. “(Clinton) may not totally understand black women because they don’t get the same opportunities as other women or white men or any other person for that matter,” Rhett said. “But Trump did not even address gender issues at all.”
When asked by the moderator if the debate changed their positions about either of the presidential hopefuls, student panelists did not appear swayed to alter their planned vote in November – unless, perhaps, something drastic happens between now and Election Day.
To view the entire presidential debate watch party, click on PANEL and CANDIDATES.
