The Hofstra Chronicle, 9-27-2016, SPECIAL DEBATE 2016 ISSUE

HEMPSTEAD, NY Debate 2016

The Hofstra

Chronicle

Tuesday September 27, 2016

special edition – debate 2016

Clinton, Trump spar for first time at Hofstra

By Michael Ortiz EDITOR - I N - C H I E F

Donald Trump continued to blame Hillary Clinton for nearly every major problem facing the country, and Clinton in turn highlighted worries regarding his temperament and character in the first presidential debate of the 2016 general election. Hofstra University hosted the debate at the David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex on Monday, Sept. 26, after having just eight weeks to prepare.

The 20th presidential debate facilitated by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), was moderated by NBC’s Lester Holt and signified the first time

the public has seen the two candidates in the same room at the same time since the race began over a year ago.

With 90 minutes and six segments, Holt noted the impossibility of touching on every issue, however he framed his questions around three central themes: “Achieving Prosperity,” “America’s Direction” and “Securing America.”

The candidates – bitter rivals throughout the race – shook hands as they walked onstage together for the first time. All was calm and collected at the start, but soon Holt lost control and the two sparred in front of a television audience expected to reach the 100 million mark.

Achieving Prosperity Clinton, the nominee for the Democratic Party, fielded the first question and immediately began discussing her plans for job growth and economic stimulation. She spoke about making the economy work for everyone, not just the rich; a talking point highlighted by her primary opponent Bernie Sanders.

“I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy and small business – because most of the new jobs will come from small business,” she said.

Trump, the Republican nomi-

nee, repeatedly called for an end on jobs “fleeing the country.”

“We have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us. We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States … we cannot let it happen.”

Trump, in a noticeably calm tone, explained that he would reduce taxes from 35 to 15 percent for small businesses.

He has also proposed cuts for wealthy Americans and boasted his plan as offering the most significant cuts since Ronald Reagan was in office.

Clinton called this “trumped up trickle-down economics,” and explained she would increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans to help rebuild the

middle class.

Trump painted the former senator and secretary of state as an establishment politician who has not been able to get anything done.

He also went after Clinton for her email controversy, saying he would release his tax returns when she released the 33,000 emails that were deleted from her private server. Clinton responded by admitting the use of that private server was a mistake, and took full responsibility for that decision.

Clinton suggested Trump refused to release his tax returns

Continued on A2

Debate 2016

A 2 • September 27, 2016

NEWS

The Chronicle

Holt loses control of debate stage Chronicle The Hofstra

Continued from A1 because he could be hiding something, such as his true monetary worth or his charitable or federal tax contributions.

Throughout the debate, Clinton called on fact-checkers to work overtime, “I know you live in your own reality,” she said to her opponent.

Leading up to the debate, the CPD made it clear that it wanted moderators to refrain from fact-checking candidates during debates. Holt generally allowed the candidates to factcheck each other; however, he did call Trump out specifically on several instances of blatant dishonesty or misinformation.

AMERICA’S DIRECTION Race was the topic of debate for Holt’s second theme, and as Trump called for a nation-wide stop-and-frisk program, Clinton offered her support for community policing and addressing systemic racial inequality.

With tensions high after the recent killings of black men in Charlotte and Tulsa at the hands of police, Clinton called for mutual respect. “Everyone should be respected by the law and everyone should respect the law.

I have – since the first day of my campaign – called for criminal justice reform.”

Trump talked about the endorsements he’s received from law enforcement groups, and said repeatedly, “We need law and order in our country.”

Both candidates stressed the need for change in individual communities. They argued that both sides are affected by this, and generally, both sides want this issue resolved.

Clinton specifically said she would allocate money to retrain officers to deal with implicit bias. Part of that training would see that officers only use force when absolutely necessary.

Her opponent’s proposed stop-and-frisk program was brought into question by Holt who pointed out that such a program was ruled unconstitutional after being implemented in New York City. Trump told him he was wrong and argued that the judge in that case was anti-law enforcement.

Holt even brought up a popular controversy that Trump is trying to lay to rest: his birther movement against President Barack Obama.

Trump admitted just this year that Obama is a natural born citizen after arguing that he was born in Kenya, something Clinton said was a racist attack.

“He tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed … he has really started his campaign based on this lie that our first black president was not an American citizen,” she said.

She even brought up two Department of Justice lawsuits against Trump for racial discrimination in the 1970s. Trump was quick to fight back, calling Clinton out for acting “holier than thou” when she herself upset many people after seemingly calling black youth in gangs “super predators.”

SECURING AMERICA

By the start of the final theme, the crowd in the debate hall began to throw out the rule of no clapping or cheering. The fight between Clinton and Trump heated up, and so did those select few ticket-holders.

With the candidates beginning to bark over one another, Holt struggled to wrangle them in and instead patiently waited for them to get their points across.

And there was no shortage of points to be made in a debate on national and international security.

Holt began by asking about cyberspace and hacking as it pertains to U.S. national security.

Clinton highlighted how important it is to fight the Islamic State (ISIS) through cyberspace, saying she believes the U.S. should go after Abu Bakr alBaghdadi, the leader of ISIS. Trump talked about ISIS as often as he could, and whenever he mentioned the terrorist organization he made sure to say that Clinton was responsible for it. He claimed that Clinton and Obama created a void for ISIS to form after Obama’s administration withdrew troops from Iraq.

“Had we taken the oil, and we should’ve taken the oil, ISIS wouldn’t have been able to form in the first place,” Trump said.

Clinton also talked about

Russia’s potential to breach American cyberspace, and how that potential has already been shown through hacks into the Democratic National Committee.

Trump questioned these claims saying “I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400lbs.”

The candidates debated about a number of other issues, ranging from nuclear weapons to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); nothing was off the table.

Trump even doubled down on his long-time feud with Rosie O’Donnell. “I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her,” he said.

Through it all, each maintained steady storylines. For Clinton, it’s one of a seasoned public servant with the right experience for the job; for Trump, it’s the story of the anti-establishment change maker whose temperament is his best quality.

www.thehofstrachronicle.com

203 Student Center (516) 463-6921 Editor-in-Chief Michael Ortiz Managing Editor Kyle Kandetzki Business Manager Erin Kiley News Editors Danny Nikander Laurel O’Keefe A&E Editor Brianna Holcomb

Assistant A&E Editor

Brianna Ciniglio Sports Editors Kevin Carroll PJ Potter

Assistant Sports Editor

Joe Fay

@Hofstra Editor Amanda Valentovic Editorial Editor Gabriella Ciuffetelli Assistant Editorial Editor Kirnendra Sidhu Copy Chief Sarah Kocher

Assistant Copy Chief

Marie Haaland

Multimedia Editor Jesse Saunders

Assistant Multimedia Editor

Peter Soucy

Social Media Manager Kimberly Gazdek

The Chronicle is published every Tuesday during the academic year by the students of Hofstra University. The Chronicle is located in Room 203 Student Center, 200 Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. 11549. Advertising and subscription rates may be obtained by calling (516) 463-6921.

The Chronicle reserves the right to reject any submission, in accordance with our written policies. All advertising which may be considered fraudulent, misleading, libelous or offensive to

Jesse Saunders/The Chronicle

the University community, The Chronicle or its advertisers may be refused. The products and

The stage for the first presidential debate held in the David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex on Sept. 26. opinions expressed within advertisement are not endorsed by The Chronicle or its staff.

NEWS

The Chronicle

September 27, 2016 •A 3

Protesters demonstrate during first debate

By Danny Nikander NEW S E D I TO R

“This is the proudest I’ve ever felt as a Hofstra student. We are coming together and raising our voice for peace and justice.”

These are the words of Natasha Rappazzo, president of Hofstra’s Campus Feminist Collective (CFC) and one of the many students who used the 2016 presidential debate as a chance to speak out about the country’s most pressing matters pertinent to the upcoming election. From rising tides to black lives, the roar of the Hofstra pride highlighted exactly what the people want to see in the next President of the United States.

Members of the Black Student Union (BSU) linked arms in front of a White House bounce castle as part of their demonstrations.

“No justice, no peace, no racist police.”

The words echoed through Hofstra’s campus as students protested the killings of black citizens by police officers. What began simply as a hashtag has now grown into the driving

force that is combating racial inequality: Black Lives Matter (BLM). The protesters attempted to renounce stereotypes that have thwarted the growth of the movement and dissuaded people from joining the cause.

“We want to show that we’re supporting everybody,” Abigail Reid, president of the Caribbean Student Association (CSA) said.

“We want to show the side of Black Lives Matter that isn’t violent and bring light to these shootings.”

BLM has often been criticized for violent responses to police killings. For instance, following the murder of Keith Lamont Scott on Sept. 20, the people of Charlotte, North Carolina, gathered for protests across the city.

The demonstrations varied from peaceful to violent; nonetheless, it was the violent protests that gained a majority of the media coverage.

Junior psychology major Wesley Reed is a Charlotte native.

She spoke of her friends from home who peacefully protested in the city for hours following Scott’s death. Reed feels the

Jesse Saunders/The Chronicle

Claudia Steele/The Chronicle

predominantly negative portrayal of BLM in the media has led to misconceptions regarding the objectives of the movement.

“That’s so not the spirit of Black Lives Matter,” Reed said.

“We’re saying stop the violence.

Hear us out. Police brutality is not about bad cops. It’s about this country being built on an infrastructure that is biased. You have to acknowledge that to move passed it.”

Students stood with their fists raised in the air telling the world why black lives matter.

Despite her plea to lessen the negative coverage of BLM, Reed believes violent reactions to police shootings are not entirely unjustified.

“I personally do think that violence is counterproductive, but if you look at Colin Kaepernick, he’s been peacefully protesting for how long now? And people … don’t respect it. If you’re going to treat us the same way, why shouldn’t we get violent?

Do I think that’s right, no, but I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to necessarily tell people how to respond to their oppression.”

Reed questioned whether or not the issue of race would be brought up at the debate. Surprisingly, in the third segment, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both asked how they could best improve race relations across the country. The inclusion of this topic legitimizes race as an issue that is no longer taboo.

Jasmine Spaulding, a junior psychology major, is the public relations director of BSU. Spaulding sees the progression of race relations in the U.S. and notes the recent willingness to have an open dialogue about the matter.

“I am seeing a change,” Spaulding said. “With social media the words are getting out fast, especially with the Black Lives Matter movement. It’s a slow change, yes, but we’re definitely getting there.”

A student from CFC called for the end of oppression against women.

As BLM protestors called for the end of the war on black lives, women’s rights protestors declared their battle against

Claudia Steele/The Chronicle

gender oppression.

This focused on the short, and further shortened, sentence of convicted rapist Brock Turner.

Demonstrators brought up the fact that African-Americans make up nearly 35 percent of the U.S. prison population, oftentimes for petty crimes, while a white man found guilty of the rape of an unconscious woman was only given a six-month jail sentence, ultimately serving only three months.

The protesting soon shifted further into the discussion of gender inequality; students addressed the topic not only as an American issue, but a global issue as well. The demonstrations illustrated the oppression of women in the United States, alluding to controversies such as the gender wage gap, abortion and the aforementioned issue of rape.

Protestors for women’s rights touched on the highly debated issue of abortion, questioning why undeveloped fetuses seem

Continued on A7

Cam Keough/The Chronicle

The stage for the first presidential debate held in the David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex on Sept. 26. Black Lives Matter (Left), AARP (Center) and Peace Activists (Right) gather in Broadcast Plaza and Monroe Lecture Hall to particpate in protests.

A 4 • September 27, 2016

NEWS

The Chronicle

Issue Alley: Students talk election 2016

By Jessica Harrington SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O N I CL E

Student organizations took over the Student Center and Issue Alley to speak about significant issues themed mainly around change and action as the 2016 presidential debate dominated campus on Monday, Sept. 26.

Every group on campus, from the Campus Feminist Collective (CFC) to Hofstra’s National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had the opportunity to make their voice heard.

The Black Student Union and NAACP joined forces, waking up at as early as 3:00 a.m. to silently protest behind CNN’s live broadcast. Students protesting wore all black clothing and held their hands in the air. Both organizations also did a piece with SP!T – Spoken Word and Poetry Influencing Thought – on Black Lives Matter.

Issues regarding race dominated the alley, as well as the humanitarian crisis in Syria, mental health and foreign policy.

“It’s very difficult being a Latin American in the United States. I personally feel grateful to be here at Hofstra and be able to get my education, knowing that many Latin Americans don’t get this opportunity,” Estefania Ramirez, from Hofstra’s Organization of Latin Americans, said.

Another organization represented was the Teenage Immigrant Integration Association.

Cem Gokhan, a member of the club, explained how their focus is immigration issues. “We help [immigrants] integrate into society so they don’t feel as marginalized by people,” he said.

A second highly vocalized topic of the election cycle found on Issue Alley was women’s rights and reproductive rights.

“Everyone, regardless of

age, sex, gender and class should have access to reproductive health care … It’s a right everyone deserves,” Roseanna Zerambo, president of Student Advocates for Safer Sex (SASS) said.

The CFC used this time to debunk the misconceptions of feminism.

“While most people think the feminist movement solely focuses on women’s issues and protesting things like men paying for dinner and anti-stayat-home moms, every issue is a feminist issue,” Olivia Patterson said.

Hofstra’s Habitat for Humanity was also at Issue Alley raising awareness about affordable housing. With their current blue jean drive, they are collecting old denim, then shredding it and turning it into insulation for houses. Members wore blue shirts that read “Loved. Worn.

Reborn. Give old denim new purpose.”

There were different stations set up around the room put on by members of the Hofstra staff.

Freebies were given away, as well as raffles for participation in other activities. Students had the option to make a political button, write about their issues on a flag that will be displayed on campus or stamp a star on

the window in their political party’s color.

Gray Kennedy, a senior community health major said, “A lot of the issues I’m really passionate about are covered here ...

It’s great to see people standing up for our basic human rights.”

Jesse Saunders/The Chronicle Students wrote issues that are important to them on a flag to be displayed on campus.

Media plays influential role in election cycle

By Emily Hulbert SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O N I CL E

Analysts estimate that the first presidential debate on Monday, Sept. 26, drew between 80 and 100 million viewers, demonstrating the media’s heavy impact on the public in this election cycle.

“Everything [the voters] learn about the candidates is filtered through the media,” Peter Kiley, vice president of affiliate relations at C-Span said. “The debates are considered the most important, because they generate the biggest television audience.”

While the responsibility of the media is to report neutrally, without intent to change the public’s views of candidates, some realize the importance of media influence.

Anthony DiLorenzo, a reporter from WPIX 11 shared his thoughts on the media’s involvement. “I think it’s inevitable that some voters will be swayed by the media coverage.

That’s not the intention, hopefully, as objective journalists, but I think it does happen,” he said.

ABC7 reporter Dray Clark said, “Good or bad, I think it’s hard for anyone to argue anything to the contrary. We profile candidates and we let people decide, but certainly we have influenced [voters].”

This election, more than any other before, has produced constant coverage of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, through the news and Internet. This election season has also seen social media become an extremely important part of the race.

W-NBC anchor Stefan Holt said that most people decide who they will vote for by “what they see on Facebook, what they see on Twitter, on Snapchat or Instagram.”

Clark also highlighted the new influence of social media in the election. “Social media has really changed the landscape of

how to communicate ... Social media has the ability to shape and sculpt the momentum of a candidacy … [it] has become too important and vital to getting your message out.”

Media coverage of the presidential debate is expected to

help sway voters, as it has in past elections, whether or not reporters intend it. The presidential debates are especially key in persuading undecided voters.

Steve Handelsman, a reporter for NBC 4 said, “I think this

could be the pivotal event of the decision process. [Many people] don’t like Hillary or Donald and they’re looking for somebody to vote for … [The debate] could be the deciding event for enough voters. It could decide who wins the election.”

Cam Keough/The Chronicle Students gather around the MSNBC stage as they go live from Broadcast Plaza.

NEWS

The Chronicle

September 27, 2016 •A 5

Millennials voice praise and concerns for Clinton

By Maria Zaldivar SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O N I CL E

The first presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle caused commotion for students all over campus, in which politics was a constant conversation on Monday, Sept. 26. As soon as Hofstra replaced Wright State University as the venue for the historical event, students did not hold back their opinions, especially on the Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Tyler Acampora, a sophomore marketing major, won a ticket to watch the debate live.

“A few times in pop culture there are instances where a man is putting down a woman’s accomplishment and taking credit for it, like with Taylor Swift and Kanye West, so I think that seeing a woman as the leader of the free world may help little girls advocate for themselves and get the idea that they can do anything,” Acampora said.

Being a role model for young women has become a major part of Clinton’s campaign. Paige Altman, a freshman business major, argued that Clinton is a powerful and smart woman.

“She has worked in the White House before so she has the preparation.”

Acampora agreed, “[Clinton] has the most experience and is the most qualified person in the country to become the president.”

Danielle Ribaudo, a junior English literature major, shared the same sentiment as Acampora and Altman.

“As a Democrat I am super stoked that we could have a woman president. I believe that it is especially important for girls to have such a great precedent,” Ribaudo said. “Just the idea that anyone could run for president no matter if you are a boy, girl, no matter your race, your creed, etc., is incredible.”

Although several people would agree that seeing a woman as a major party nominee and a possible president would attract the majority of women voters, others remained unconvinced.

“I am very excited to see a woman as president, however I do not think that she is the right person for the job. She’s not the way I want women to be represented,” Dana DiPretoro, a

senior psychology major said.

In addition to how Clinton represents women, mistrust in the candidate also played a role in student’s views.

“What I am focusing with Hillary is if I can trust her. It does not matter what she says policy-wise if it is all going to be a lie anyway so I just want to be reassured,” Branden Valliere, a junior accounting major said.

Michael Fernandez, a sophomore music education major said,“I think it is pretty great that she is the first woman nominee and it would be really cool to have a woman president.

I just do not trust Hillary since the emails keep leaking.”

Sharing this concern, Alex Homsany, a senior speech pathology major said, “If we can’t trust her to be secretary of state, why should [she] be trusted as president of our country?”

The two party system that dominates American politics was another root of students’ opinions on Clinton.

“A lot of people see her as the lesser of two evils,” Tyler Ellis, a junior history major said. “I was a Bernie supporter and I am more comfortable with [Clinton]

as she reassures that she will continue with some of Bernie’s policies.”

Some students believed that regardless of opinions, the influence of the debate – as well as what Clinton represents – should not be undermined.

“Although I don’t support everything she stands for, she is a powerful, successful woman,” Ribuado said. “Regardless of what people say, she is here and

she is still going strong.”

Regardless of which candidate students support, there was a general agreement on the history that Clinton has forged so far for women.

Tyler Fleury, a sophomore studying secondary English education said, “We can say we were here while history is in the making. It is a historical moment for women.”

Cam Keough/The Chronicle Hillary Clinton campaign signs parade around campus.

Trump social media dominates campus dialogue

By Tanner Way SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O N I CL E

Despite the aggressive use of social media to reach out to the large population of first-time voters on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign, a majority of Hofstra’s campus remained neutral heading into Monday night’s debate.

Social media, and particularly Trump’s use of social media, has inspired a large variety of opinions amongst students.

Trump has used Twitter and other forms of media to influence voters’ opinions of him.

“Donald Trump has invested a lot of money in social media.

He created a Snapchat geofilter … it was very smart because everyone sees it and then that leads to people talking about him,” Brooke Bifulco, a senior marketing major said.

In the past, Trump, the Re-

publican nominee, has known how to work the media through his experience with reality TV programs such as “The Apprentice” and the Miss Universe pageant.

The younger generations of America have turned to, and become reliant on, social media as a primary source of political information. This can be dangerous considering many millennials fail to seek out the source of the news they receive.

In response to whether or not social media is the best way to reach millennials, graduate student Mahnoor Saeed said, “I say no because 44 percent of people in the United States get their information from Facebook. Facebook gives you the news you want to hear because they know your interests. They will give you your news, not the news.”

Some students say Trump’s domination and aggressiveness through social media will influence voters to steer away from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and become confident that he is the right candidate for the presidency.

“Campaigning is different now,” Guiseppe Chiaravalle, a senior rhetoric major and Trump supporter, said. “Trump has shown you don’t need to spend the money that you traditionally have to spend on a campaign because he utilizes social media. He purposely says outlandish things to control the new[s] cycle.”

Trump has been known to be more of a businessman, rather than a career politician like Clinton. Some students find this refreshing, while others see it as frightening that a man with little knowledge or political

experience could be our next president.

“He does not give us what policies he is going to change.

Whatever question he gets asked, he always answers with ‘it’s going to be great,’” Saeed said.

“It’s really unfortunate that he

got this far,” Nabiha Rahaman, a graduate student, added.

This election cycle’s group of young voters has proven to be bigger than the population of baby boomers. They will be one of the major deciding factors of whether or not Trump has conveyed his platform successfully

Jonathan E. Heisler/Hofstra University Trump supporter sports campaign slogan flag.

A 6 • September 27, 2016

NEWS

The Chronicle

Third party candidates find support on campus

By Katie Krahulik STAFF W R I T E R

Three third party candidates, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin and Vermin Supreme, appeared on campus Monday, Sept. 26, for the first presidential debate of 2016, each aiming to spread awareness of their campaigns and fairness of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

Their presence was reflected through protests off campus.

Many of those demonstrating on Hempstead Turnpike came not to advocate on behalf of the major party candidates, but to show support for the third party players in this election’s political game.

“If I had the opportunity and honor to get arrested with Jill Stein, then I would,” a demonstrator who asked to remain nameless, said.

Executive Director of the Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives Margaret Melkonian shared similar views on Stein’s legitimacy in this election.

“She does present an alternative perspective and view and it’s too bad that the whole country could not hear her tonight, but only a small number

of people know about what she’s really saying. The fact that it’s a closed debate, that’s a problem,” Melkonian said.

Both Hofstra University and the CPD have received backlash on social media for only permitting the candidates of the two major political parties – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – to participate in the debate Monday night (although the university has no say in who can or cannot debate).

As the two front-running third party candidates together share about 15 percent of support nationally according to NBC News, millions of supporters are beginning to feel as though their voice is not being heard in this election.

“It’s really unfortunate that they’re only letting the two candidates from the Democratic and Republican Part[ies] participate,” Emile Beck a junior global studies and sociology major and a member of the non-partisan campaign, Peace Action said. “Even though they have the quota for percent of voters needed to participate, I still think that 10 percent is a lot, even two percent is millions of people.”

Lou Jasikoff, a Hofstra

alumnus, exercised his free speech on the turnpike Monday to show his support for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.

“This issue might be the most important issue of the day as far as I’m concerned anyway,” Jasikoff said of the bipartisan system.

“We can disagree on issues, but we must have open debate.

It was Kennedy who warned us back in ‘61 that in order to survive in a democracy, we need to have open and honest debate,” Jasikoff said. He takes issue with the fact that the two major parties comprise the leadership of the CPD, and argued that Johnson has a lot to bring to the executive table.

On the other hand, many people feel as though the third parties are irrelevant. The question now is how would a multiparty system work, as a winning candidate has the potential to disappoint the majority of Americans in a four-way election.

“I think third party candidates are detrimental to the country, especially for this election because they are taking votes away from the candidates that matter,” Julian Martin-Poteet, a sophomore and film major said.

Of course, a large portion of

people and organizations who involved themselves in Debate Day activities were strong supporters of the major party candidates, including the Planned Parenthood demonstrators who support Clinton, the Democratic nominee.

A group of young Trump supporters decked out in red hats and Trump attire seemed to be pleased with the outcome of the democratic process, thus far.

Joe Chiaravalle, a senior

rhetoric major said, “Ideally, it would be better to have more than two parties. However, no matter what, if you look at Game Theory it will always come back down to two parties because people are going to keep joining together until there are only two parties. I do think that this is a debate where third parties are the most relevant.

However, I’m still on the Trump train.”

Joseph Kolb/The Chronicle Dr. Jill Stein poses with NCPD Deputy Chief Kevin G. Canavan.

Political experts give insight ahead of debate

By Casey Lamkin STAFF WR I T E R

Eugene Robinson and Stephen Hayes, both award-winning authors and contributors to major TV networks as political experts, spoke on the issues that will decide the outcome of this election at the J.C. Adams Playhouse on Thursday, Sept. 22.

“We’re going to talk about the issues, but let’s be honest, that’s not what this campaign is about,” Robinson said. “The issues in this campaign are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.” Hayes shook his head in agreement and said, “Eugene and I might end up agreeing today more than people would assume.”

Hayes and Robinson are technically opposites on the political

spectrum; Hayes is a conservative senior writer for The Weekly Standard and Robinson is a liberal Washington Post columnist.

Clarifying what they called “obvious,” both writers explained that neither candidate is a “typical” choice. They noted that Donald Trump is not “more of the same” Republican candidates that America has seen and because Hillary Clinton is a woman she too is a deviation from the norm. They explained that each candidates’ differences was the biggest deciding factor as to why they’re the last ones standing.

Elliot Rubin, a senior public relations major said that he found the event to be interesting. “And it’s intriguing how the liberal Robinson, and the

conservative Hayes, had very similar views on the election as a whole.”

Robinson explained that when he covered the election eight years ago, as then Senator Obama was elected the first black president, he believed that would be the “craziest political story” he would ever cover.

However, Robinson alluded to the unconventional and unexpected outcome of the primaries of the current election.

Robinson predicts the candidates’ platforms on climate change and healthcare – the very same issues that plagued Obama’s presidency – will be what will decide this election.

“Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax,” Robinson said. “Clinton wants to change Obamacare but use it as a foun-

dation for additional reforms.”

Hayes also expressed the possibility that climate change will factor into the election due to its importance to millennials, noting the Clinton campain’s lackluster approach to the issue.

However, Hayes was doubtful policy issues will play the entire role in who will become the next president, but rather it will be based upon personality.

“This isn’t a departure from the old way we did things in politics, but it’s just the new way we deal with politics and it’s personality driven,” Hayes said.

Dr. Kara Alaimo, assistant professor and associate chair of the Department of Journalism, Media Studies and Public Relations, moderated the event.

“Opportunities like this to be

part of the election process are one of the reasons why I love being a member of the Hofstra community,” Alaimo said. “It was valuable and I think it’s very important to leave politics aside and have a productive, respectful discussion of the issues that matter and what is at stake for the country in this election.”

Robinson concluded by offering the public an explaination for the unique nature of this election and the candidates.

“The public shouldn’t get off the hook for this election,” he said. “We might not like [the candidates], but we were essentially the ones who let both candidates get this far in the first place.”

NEWS

The Chronicle

September 27, 2016 •A 7

Students take to Monroe for demonstrations Continued from A3 to have more rights than the women who bear them.

Students crossed the Unispan sporting signs criticizing U.S. relations with immigrants.

Protestors soon turned to issues of immigration policy. The issues began to meld and called into question who really has more rights, a fertilized egg or an illegal immigrant.

The major political parties in this country seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, not knowing whether to let foreigners remain residents of the U.S., or to kick them out altogether.

One student donned a sign reading, “Respeto y dignidad para todos (Respect and dignity for all),” in hopes of improving the treatment of immigrants not as illegal aliens, but as humans.

Another student contemplated why foreigners are referred to as immigrants when they come to America; however, original European colonists are recognized as revolutionaries. She held up a sign that read, “Illegal immigration is not a new problem, Native Americans used to call it white people.”

Separating from issues of race, gender and ethnicity,

protestors were seen fighting for an issue that affects every living species on earth: climate change.

A protestor dressed as a polar bear asks what will be done about climate change.

A majority of scientists know that the root of record-breaking global temperatures is perpetuated by human activity. This past July was recorded as the hottest month on record, for the planet. Even so, many still deny its existence or disagree with its frequent branding as the world’s greatest threat. Protestors criticized climate change deniers and their constant disregard of scientific data.

“People aren’t listening anymore,” Jennifer Stein, who protested Trump’s candidacy, said. “We need to make sure what is being said is true.”

Presidential candidates have the responsibility of addressing a multitude of issues when debating. It becomes a common occurrence for them to present facts and statistics that are misleading, or simply incorrect, usually to support their biases.

Hempstead resident Viviene Jones said, “Everything about this election is biased.”

Jones additionally feels that live fact-checking should be

required for debates, noting that many people accept incorrect information as fact without further research or clarification. Misleading data is oftentimes used to suppress certain social issues, such as the many that marched through Hofstra’s campus.

Amid the protests, it was often hard to find a specific issue that predominantly lead the demonstrations. Instead, protestors came together in unified

support of each other, standing and chanting as one people, emphasizing the importance of the right to protest.

“I’m here to advocate a democracy for all Americans,” sophomore English education major Sharon Rus said. “I’m here to advocate for equality and peace.”

It seems almost a forgotten notion that the President of the United States works in the inter-

est of those who really make the country great: the people.

Regardless of differences in opinion, to exercise one’s right to protest is to recognize that change is possible. The protests at the first 2016 presidential debate proved that a song sung solo may sound sweet, but a melody will always sound sweeter. And if you ever find that you don’t know the lyrics, just sit back and listen.

Cam Keough/The Chronicle Students protest outside Monroe Hall on debate day.

Public Safety Briefs Compiled by Brianna O’Keefe

On Sept. 22 at 9:00 p.m., While on patrol, PS officers observed a taxi stopped near Hofstra Northern Boulevard and Hofstra Boulevard. They then observed an individual flee from the taxi running toward the University Club. PS followed the individual and when they confronted him, the individual became combative and attempted to punch one of the officers.

The individual had to be physically restrained. While they were restraining the individual, one officer sustained minor injuries to the left knee and the other officer sustained injuries to both hands and knees. After the individual was restrained

an orange syringe needle and a glass pipe with burn marks was confiscated. The individual was identified as a Hofstra commuter student and was taken into the Hofstra information center and the NCPD was notified. They responded to the location and it was discovered that the individual had jumped out of the car without paying his fare. The student admitted to using heroin during the evening, he was placed under arrest and taken to NUMC for treatment. Two officers were treated for their injuries at the Hofstra information center. The student will be issued a referral to community standards.

On Sept. 22 at 11:15 p.m., RAs reported to PS they found underage students drinking alcohol in a room in Salem House in Colonial Square. PS responded and found the resident and five guests, four were non students and one was a Hofstra commuter student. There were several empty bottles of alcohol in the room and one bottle of vodka was emptied into the sink. An investigation found that the four non-students who were guests in the room had not registered their ID’s at the Colonial Square security booth, which is a violation of the residential life policy.

All participants were taken to the information center where the

non-students were banned from campus, and the students were issued referrals to community standards.

On Sept. 23 at 4:15 p.m., An RSR assigned to the Colonial Square east entrance security booth reported to PS that an unidentified male piggy-backed his way behind another student and illegally entered the residential complex.

PS responded and found the individual who was identified as a Hofstra student who lives in Bill of Rights. The student was rude and non-complaint. He was issued a referral to community standards for his actions.

Key PS – Public Safety RA – Resident Assistant NCPD – Nassau County Police Department RSR – Resident Safety Respresentative

A 8 • September 27, 2016

@Hofstra

The Chronicle

David S. Mack donates to debates

By Justin Grant STAFF W R I T E R

Let’s just say Hofstra University is the political epicenter of the world.

Less than 72 hours before the first presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle at Hofstra, not only was the campus buzzing and electric, but David S. Mack’s heart was also throbbing with excitement.

Mack, who is a 1967 graduate of Hofstra and a longtime donor to the university, helped bring the 2016 debate to campus for the third consecutive time.

It’s safe to say that he has made history come alive. How?

Hofstra is the only university to host three presidential debates.

And he is one of the three alumni donors who helped to fund all three of them.

Mack took the time to talk about his take on the debate that happened on Monday.

He shared his hopes about Republican nominee Donald Trump.

“Hopefully, he [Donald Trump] will be more specific.”

He was harsher towards Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, by urging her to answer questions directly and straight to the point. “She needs to be upright.”

Mack added that when the moderator, Lester Holt, asks

the questions, they need to be substantive questions and not general ones.

When asked about his fears for the debate, he said he has none. “I think the security is all but done, we have the best setting for the debate and the best security for the debate than all other universities.”

Mack feels this debate will be well-watched throughout the whole country. “People will either be listening to the radio or watching it on television.”

As for him, he has the best seat in the house. Mack will be sitting in the first row in the debate hall, usually known as the Mack Sports and Exhibition

Complex.

He went as far as to say that this debate is the most important one. How so? Well, first he took a hit at President Obama by saying that he did not do well on stage in 2008 when he was facing off against Senator and Republican nominee John McCain at Hofstra during the first debate. However, Mack said this debate is a whole new story.

To Mack, this debate is crucial and said the two candidates will speak their mind. He mentioned he knows both candidates personally and is honored that Hofstra is hosting the debate three times in a row.

So, what is he hoping for?

Let’s just put it this way: We will see what happens on stage between these two candidates.

Time will tell.

“I supported this debate because this is a milestone for Hofstra University and Nassau County, where I live. This debate brings the attention to prospective students who would like to attend a university where there is life on campus. This is just a real honor that Hofstra University will have its third debate in a row.”

Mack then expressed his pride for Hofstra. “First comes Hofstra University in importance and second comes the debate.”

The art of politics

How editorial cartoons can influence voters

By Amanda Valentovic and Ava Mandel FEATUR E S E D I TO R / S P E CI AL TO THE C H R O N I C L E

Turn to the editorial page of any publication and you’ll find artwork depicting a public figure or a current event in cartoon form. Look at street art that’s making a statement about what’s going on in the world, or sculptures that have been made of historical figures. It all has something in common, especially every four years: the theme of the art is political.

Editorial cartoons and

political art doesn’t disappear when an election is over, but it becomes much more prominent during a year with a race to the White House because it’s a way for artists to make a statement and make voters think more about the issues.

“I think sometimes when someone sees a cartoon they’re going to become a little bit more aware of it and be like, ‘Oh, yeah. That’s true,’” said Los Angeles-based mixed media artist Joey Feldman. “I don’t know for a fact that you would influence a voter, but I think it would make them more curious of what the artist is trying to say.”

Often, editorial cartoonists and political artists cover all candidates who are running, regardless of their own positions.

But in some cases the art has a specific purpose.

For example, during this election cycle statues of a naked Donald Trump appeared in cities across the country. Behind the statues was INDECLINE, a group of artists, filmmakers and activists who use art to fight for social causes.

“For most of us, especially those unwilling to accept the choices we’re given when it comes the presidential nominees, political art is the only way to create a real change,” said a representative from the anonymous INDECLINE. “Political art is an essential way to offer effective messages from the dissenting class.”

The statues, which were placed in locations including the Castro District of San Francisco and on Capitol Hill, were placed based on anti-Trump sentiments.

The project was called “The Emperor Has No B---s,” and was meant to receive a reaction.

“INDECLINE strives to educate and raise awareness with all of its projects. The important thing is to create a conversation.

Whether it be productive, or critical, INDECLINE always aims to engage and inspire,” the organization said.

On the other hand, some artisans use their work for entertainment as much as they do for awareness. “I think both candidates have flaws and inconsis-

tencies that need to be brought to the public’s attention,” said Ema Sampey, an illustrator from Savannah, Georgia.

“What better way to accomplish that than through humor Illustrations by Ava Mandel and satire?”

And for this election especially, there’s a ton of incidents to satirize. “I think with these two candidates there’s just an unbelievable amount of subjects that you can constantly come up with stuff for,” Feldman said.

“There’s so much information that you can just ridicule. It makes a cartoonist’s job easier.”

Political art has even taken on new forms in the digital age – anyone can make something

and share it online. “As print newspapers declined in recent decades fewer than a hundred paid political cartoonists continued to function in this country,” said journalism professor Daniel van Benthuysen. “But … with a little Photoshop and the help of Twitter and Facebook, thousands, maybe even millions of people turned into meme-makers, producing images with very few words to do the same thing cartoonists have done. The spirit of the cartoonist lives on.”

@hofstra

The Chronicle

September 27, 2016 •A 9

Meet the Moderators: Lester Holt at Hofstra

By Emma Butz SPEC I A L TO T H E C H R O NI CL E

Lester Holt

WHERE: Hofstra University WHEN: September 26th, 2016

----Holt is currently the anchor of “NBC Nightly News.”

----He began his career in 1981 with CBS after dropping out of California State University, Sacramento where he studied government.

----Holt joined MSNBC in 2000, giving him his big debut. His most notable story was reporting on Florida’s vote recount for the 2000 presidental election.

----He is also the anchor for “Dateline NBC.” ----Holt plays the bass guitar in his spare time.

Meet the rest of the moderators @ thehofstrachronicle.com

Debate three-peat: Looking back at ‘08 and ‘12

By Rachel Bowman SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O N I CL E

This year Hofstra University made history by becoming the first school to host a presidential debate for three consecutive election cycles. When the preparations came to an end and the stage was set, Hofstra reflected back on the 2008 and 2012 debates.

In November 2007, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that Hofstra would be the site of the final debate on Oct. 15, 2008. It was the year of Barack Obama versus John McCain, and Colin P. Sullivan – the current director of communications in Student Affairs – was a student here at the time. “There was a real energy of change and electricity all over campus,” Sullivan said.

With almost a year to prepare, the university created the Educate 2008 Initiative; a calendar of learning experiences and events for students. The 2008 calendar of events was compiled based on issues prominent at the time and included guest speakers such as Gloria Steinem on gender and race in politics.

It also included events like the “Diversity, Dialogue and Dessert Series: Are You Broke Yet? The Wealth Gap in America.”

A commemorative 50th anniversary coin from the university’s celebrations in 1985

was tossed to determine which candidate would be questioned first.

In October 2011, the CPD announced once again that Hofstra would be the site for a presidential debate on Oct. 16, 2012. Thus began another yearlong preparation leading up to the event.

“All of the tour guides and everyone I met at open houses and such were always very pumped, and that was usually the first thing that was mentioned any time I was at Hofstra before starting,” said graduate student Emily Davidson, a freshman at the time of the 2012 debate.

The common reading for the class of 2016 was based on the debate as well. Freshmen read “Tension City: Inside the Presidential Debates, from Kennedy-Nixon to Obama-McCain”

by Jim Lehrer. Lehrer has been moderating debates since they were first televised. “It was a really interesting read, especially because of the context in which I read it,” Davidson said.

The 2012 Signature Event Series featuring guest speakers such as Jeb Bush, and hosted events including the Critical Spiritualties Lecture Series. One event in the series was “Mormon Girl Goes to the Elections: a Candid Exploration of Faith in American Politics.”

The debate day events began

the night before, when broadeveryone’s reactions to certain and past experiences to recreate casters took to the student center answers and hearing people’s similar events to those at the to begin reporting. “We all put opinions on specific questions previous debates, and worked to on our Hofstra gear proudly and was as entertaining as the debate provide even more opportunities joined a small group of stuitself,” Davidson said. for students. dents outside the student center “Now it’s even crazier to Hofstra had agreed to serve around 11 p.m. to be a backthink that I graduated there in as an alternate debate site for ground part of the broadcast,” May and now the next presiWright State University in 2016.

Davidson said. dent will be on the same stage After WSU withdrew, Hofstra The student center then bedebating. I’m just happy I have was then left with only three came a hub of events throughout the opportunity to experience months to prepare for what has the day. “I remember going to a it all again as a grad student,” been called one of the most constage by the student center and Backer said. troversial presidential debates in watching a newscast and was Collections on the previous history. Sullivan said, “We had amazed by how many students debates can be found on the first to do the same amount of work were out at 7 a.m. with signs floor of the Axinn Library. The at the same level in a truncate and posters,” said graduate university used student surveys amount of time.” student Beth Backer, who was a freshman at the time.

Both Backer and Davidson attended the viewing party in the Netherlands Core, where they decorated crafts and watched the debate with their peers.

“Watching the debate with fellow students was Photo courtesy of Hofstra University a fun experience – seeing Colin Sullivan and student volunteers get ready for the presidential debate in 2012.

Op-ED A Letter From Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students Sofia Pertuz Dear Hofstra Chronicle,

Claudia Steel/ The Chronicle

Gabbie Downs/ The Chronicle

Claudia Claudia Steel/ Steel/ The The Chronicle Chronicle

Gabbie Downs/ The Chronicle

Claudia Steel/ The Chronicle

Cam Keough/ The Chronicle

Wesley Reed The Chronicle

Claudia Steel/ The Chronicle

Cam Keough/ The Chronicle

Claudia Steel/ The Chronicle

I am writing this before the debate physically takes place so I can’t comment specifically on its content, but what I can comment on is the palpable excitement on campus during this momentous time in Hofstra University’s history. The past few days have truly demonstrated not only the collaborative nature that it took to make this debate happen from all areas of the university, but the passion that our students have for the issues and the opportunity to have a voice.

The world is watching Hofstra University and has been since we heard we were going to host the first 2016 presidential debate about two months ago. What an amazing time to be at Hofstra!

I was so proud to see how connected our students have been, even those not usually interested in politics. The robust slate of pre-debate programs organized at Hofstra provided an opportunity for students to learn from a variety of perspectives. As we were preparing for these programs, the debate and the upcoming election, we encouraged students to get involved and engage respectfully, promoting the hashtag #ManyVoices1Pride.

Hofstra is a special place that brings together a diverse student population, a community with many different backgrounds and differing opinions. In order to capitalize on this rich diversity, we must be able to share and engage in a free and open exchange of ideas. I have seen so many examples of our students respectfully engaging in dialogue and I believe hosting the debate provided even more opportunities to do so.

There were several moments that stood out to me as I walked around campus on Debate Day. The first of these moments was watching students wake up really early to represent Hofstra and hold up signs for the early morning news broadcasts. One of these groups of students shed some light on recent violent acts in black communities by wearing all black and linking arms in solidarity for a peaceful protest. I also saw students hold up signs and share their thoughts with reporters about many national topics of concern. Issue Alley was another place where student organizations shared their perspectives about the major issues impacting the United States of America and beyond. I was so proud of students who were using this international platform to express to the world their opinions on matters that were important to them. No matter which candidates or political parties students are favoring, the most important thing is for students to find their voices and participate actively in the political process.

We also had the wonderful opportunity to host 15 Wright State University students, who expressed to our Vice President for Student Affairs, W. Houston Dougharty how incredibly appreciative they were to spend time with Hofstra students, faculty and staff. They were impressed with the diversity of our campus community and with the generosity with which they were received. My favorite comment was how nice they thought New Yorkers were and of course, I am a New Yorker, so I think they should expect nothing less!

I share the sense of excitement that I have seen throughout this experience and have PRIDE in our students and PRIDE in our community. I am more committed than ever to ensuring that every student can find their voice at Hofstra and it’s a place where students can become the best version of themselves. I invite students to contact me at deanofstudents@hofstra.edu if they have ideas on how we can do that – together.

Gabbie Downs/ The Chronicle

Cam Keough/ The Chronicle

Peter Soucy/ The Chronicle

Claudia Steel/ The Chronicle

Respectfully submitted by Sofia Bautista Pertuz, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students

Claudia Steel/ The Chronicle

Claudia Steel/ The Chronicle Claudia Steel/ The Chronicle

Gabbie Downs/ The Chronicle

Editorials

Spread by Jesse Saunders and Peter Soucy

Photo Courtesy of Hofstra University

Photo Courtesy of Hofstra University

Jesse JesseSaunders/The Saunders /The Chronicle Chronicle

A&E

B 2• September 27, 2016

The Chronicle

the super bowl of politics

By Brianna Holcomb & Brianna Ciniglio

ARTS & E N T E RTA I N M E N T E DI TORS

Turn on any news station and you’re bound to find Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s latest campaign activities.

Whether it’s Clinton being whisked off by Secret Service because she has fallen ill or one of Trump’s children explaining why their father is not “deplorable,” there is no shortage of coverage for this presidential race.

Although we know the race for the White House is a serious and important piece of the American democratic system, can we see this race as a form of entertainment?

The definition of entertainment, by Merriam-Webster, is “the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment.”

If we are supposed to enjoy what we are seeing in order for it to be considered entertainment, then what are people looking forward to for this debate and what does the debate promise to show us? “[The debate] promises to be exciting live television,” said

Susan Drucker, a professor of journalism, media studies and public relations, before the debate.

“What we are looking at is a live television show that offers all sorts of tension, drama and suspension, which is exciting and entertaining.”

Alex Mucci, a senior criminology major, tuned in to the debate for the entertainment value more so than for anything else.

“This debate can be summed up in two words: a circus,” Mucci said. “I’m choosing to watch this debate as a comedy, not as an actual debate between two ideologically separate people who can actually shape the fate of this nation.”

Industry analysts have predicted that the number of viewers for the live broadcast of the first presidential debate will be on the same scale as the Super Bowl (more than 100 million people.)

There are a few similarities when looking at how media outlets get ready for the Super Bowl.

Hofstra’s campus was flooded with news outlets throughout the days leading up to the debate, all

of which were setting up stages to cover the big event. Analysts were prepared to comment on the candidates’ every move.

And just like the Super Bowl, viewers at home will be watching and waiting to see how their players – or candidates – perform.

“I think many people tune in for the entertainment value – the controversy,” said Jingsi Wu, a mass media professor at Hofstra.

“They tune in for the spectatorship.”

Adding Trump into the mix has definitely increased the spectatorship of the debate.

“Trump is an entertainment figure,” Wu said.

She believes that his background in the entertainment world before he began his candidacy has played a role in his success as a presidential candidate.

“His public persona created on ‘The Apprentice’ is very driven and able to manage things,” Wu said. “This parallels what people want to see in the commander in chief. They want someone who is able to make decisions. He has created an entertainment persona that

they see has the qualities of the president of the country. “ But is viewing the debate – which will ultimately help the country determine who should be our next leader – as a form of entertainment a good thing?

“Entertainment certainly has a positive role to play,” Wu said. “[But] at some point we need to take the fate of the country seriously. We have to be mindful of the potential traps.”

Meena Bose, the executive dean of the Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs, believes that news outlets and

Jesse Saunders /The Chronicle

ghosts of debates past

Amanda Valentovic /The Chronicle

By Amanda Valentovic FEATUR E S E D I TO R

Debates of the past came back to life on Monday as performers put on a Chautauqua play featuring the 1872 and 1972 elections, with historical figures including Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony. Chautauqua is a 19th century educational performance meant to reform movements and entertain and is

largely improvised by the actors.

Lisa Merrill, a rhetoric professor here at Hofstra, organized the performance and also played Victoria Woodhull, a figure of the women’s suffrage movement who ran for president in 1872.

“Everything we say is historically accurate,” Merrill said.

“They were said throughout these character’s lives, and we use transcripts.”

Other historical figures featured in the Chautauqua performance included Douglass, played by Charles Everett Pace, Susan B. Anthony (Sally Matson), Judge Ward Hunt (John Dennis Anderson) and Shirley Chisholm, played

by Hofstra alumna Shakirah DeMesier. Content related to this year’s election themes was highlighted – Chisholm was the first African-American elected to Congress in 1968 and the first black candidate for president.

Anthony was arrested, tried and convicted of voting in the presidential election of 1872, before women were legally able to vote.

Hunt was a judge on the Supreme Court who presided over Anthony’s case. Douglass, an abolitionist, writer and statesman described his support for women’s rights in the perfor-

the debate moderator, Lester Holt, will be taking this event as a serious news piece and not as entertainment.

What were people looking forward to seeing in the debate?

Bose was looking forward to seeing how the candidates engaged with each other. “[The debate will be] an event of the century,” Mucci said. “Which can only be seen to be believed that it is truly happening.”

Regardless of one’s opinions of the candidates, most would agree that the debate was a TV event worth watching.

mance. The characters interacted with each other very few times, the notable exception being the reenactment of Anthony’s trial, where she was fined $100 for voting for Ulysses S. Grant.

DeMesier graduated from Hofstra in 2009, so she was at Hofstra to experience the 2008 debate. She performed in a Chautauqua performance then as well, playing Harriet Tubman.

“The culture is different this time around,” she said about the atmosphere on campus. “The presidential climate is different.

I can feel this sense of urgency just standing here.”

Since Hofstra had less time to prepare for this debate than in the past, Merrill put the performance together very quickly.

She and the other performers made sure to bring historical figures to life whose messages are still relevant today.

“There’s so much going on in this election, and if people could see these people, even some from their own lifetimes [like Chisolm], it can answer some of their questions,” Merrill said.

A big part of the performance was centered on the fact that while Hillary Clinton is the first woman to win a presidential nomination, she is not the first woman to run – Woodhull, the founder of the Equal Rights Party was. “If people could see that even if women couldn’t vote, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they couldn’t be voted for,” said Merrill.

Cover: 2008 Presidential Debate 2012 Presidential Debate 2016 Presidential Debate

The Chronicle

A&E

September 27, 2016 •B 3

Parks and rec Parallels 2016 election

Photo courtesy of vulture.com

By Amanda Valentovic FEATUR E S E D I TO R

The circus that has been the 2016 presidential election seems like it’s something that could only happen in a fictional world. Somehow it’s happening in the real one – but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some fake campaigns with eerie similarities. Case in point: “Parks and

Recreation.” For those who haven’t had the pleasure of watching NBC’s recently ended comedy, Amy Poehler plays Leslie Knope, a government employee in the small town of Pawnee, Indiana, with lofty political goals and a crush on Vice President Joe Biden. Her run for a seat on Pawnee’s City Council took up most of the show’s fourth season – which started while the 2012 race to the White House was entering the home stretch.

But this election, four years later, is the one that seems to have more in common with the fictional Knope 2012 campaign.

Here are three parallels between a TV election that didn’t really happen and the current election that we’re in the midst of: The candidates: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not perfect matches for their counterparts in this scenario, but their origins are. On the show, Leslie and her opponent Bobby Newport (Paul Rudd) are complete opposites: Leslie has experience in government, even if it’s only as a director in the department that runs Pawnee’s parks, while Bobby does not. He comes from the big corporation that employs many people in the town and he’s running for City Council because, well, why not?

Both of them have their flaws. Both have passionate supporters. The poll results are close right up until the end. Sound familiar?

The citizens: Speaking of passionate voters, Pawnee, Indiana, has quite a few. Bobby and Leslie had allies and enemies alike during the campaign for City Council.

They made sure that their voices were heard, whether the voters chose to go to a rally to support the candidate they liked or to the campaign bowling night to get

in a fight with the one they didn’t. And we can’t leave out the supporters of the lesser-known candidates either, “Parks and Recreation” made sure to give them their time to shine as well. It’s the same in our current election: everyone wants to be heard, everyone has an opinion and everyone believes that they are right.

The debate: Debate season in our 2016 election is just getting started. But there have been debates within the political parties, and “Parks and Recreation” did a pretty good job displaying what they were like before the 2016 debates even happened: a lot of candidates, a lot of ideas and a lot of voters who don’t know who to cast their ballot for. Each candidate has taken shots at each other in speeches, in the media and directly. The Pawnee City Council debate featured one-liners that would have trended on Twitter, had they been real, which has happened countless times in this election already. The “Parks and Recreation” debate turned the tables for Leslie and gave her the support from voters that she had been looking for. We still have to wait to find out which of our candidates this will happen to in 2016; but hey, if it happened on this show, it will probably happen in real life. … Or at least that’s what these parallels are pointing to.

Hofstra and the First families

By Savanna Malloy

SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O NI CL E

In honor of the third consecutive presidential debate being held at Hofstra on Monday, Sept. 26, the university has put together an exhibition comprised of photographs of U.S. presidents and their families who have visited campus in the past.

In the Conference and Exhibition Hall of Joan & Donald Axinn Library, a single horizontal row of 12 large format photographs in black frames adorns the wall.

At first glance, this collection titled “First Families” does not automatically draw the viewer’s eye or pique one’s interest.

It is not until closer inspection of the pictures that the audience is able to grasp the historical significance and impressive nature of this collection. The simplicity of the set-up serves as a stark contrast to the remarkable subjects it depicts.

The photographs are not arranged in chronological order. They jump from a black and white image of Dwight D. Eisenhower receiving an honorary degree from Hofstra in 1950, to a photo of the

Obamas at the 2008 presidential debate, to a scene of Eleanor B. Roosevelt at the Hofstra Shakespeare Festival in 1958.

This seems to emphasize the notion that Hofstra has had an important place in politics throughout the decades.

Hofstra has played many different roles in politics. Various presidents have used Hofstra as a campaign ground, such as Jimmy Carter, who is depicted in the gallery giving a speech in front of a Hofstra banner at the Fitness Center in 1990.

The university has also been a place for the first families to speak to and educate the youth. One of the most interesting and personal photographs in the collection shows former first lady, Barbara Bush, reading to a group of children at Hofstra’s Child Care Institute in 1997.

Most recently however, Hofstra has been known as a venue for political debates. With photographs of the candidates and their supporters from the 2008 and 2012 presidential debates, the collection speaks not only to the storied political past of Hofstra, but also to the future, as Hofstra is to become the first university

to host three consecutive presidential debates.

“I didn’t even realize that these photographs existed; it’s really cool to learn that Hofstra has such a rich political past,” said Hofstra senior and accounting major, Colby Hussong, as she looked at

an image of Hillary Clinton holding up a university sweatshirt at Hofstra’s Business Development Center in 1992.

“First Families” will run through Sunday, Oct. 1, on the 10th floor of the Axinn library and can be visited during library hours.

Photo Courtesy of Hofstra University

One of the images on display, First Lady Barbara Bush at Hofstra’s Child Care Institute in 1997.

B 4• September 27, 2016

A&E

‘W.E.B Du Bois: A Man For All times’

By Daniel Nguyen

SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O NI CL E

On Sunday, Sept. 25, Pulse Ensemble Theatre showcased “W.E.B. Du Bois: A Man For All Times” featuring Brian Richardson as Du Bois. Produced by artistic director Alexa Kelly, the oneman play followed Du Bois through his early years from his birth in the town of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, to his eventual decline and death in Accra, Ghana. In between, the story showcased Du Bois’ personal philosophy and often horrific confrontations with racism in the late 19th century, highlighting his life-long battle for civil rights. Du Bois is remembered as one of history’s most important black leaders. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “History cannot ignore W.E.B. Du Bois.”

I was glad I went to this event,” said Catie Yanchak, a junior dual major in journalism and classical studies. “I learned about him in high school, but it was really interesting to learn about this history in the form of a play; it was very powerful.”

The play began in 1953 with Du Bois in shackles. He had been indicted during the McCarthy era and stood trial for suspected Communist ties. The scene dissolved into a passionate diatribe from Du Bois on the foundations of American freedom. Escalating towards the speech’s end, the historic figure raised his arms to unravel his chains and proclaimed, “Wake up America!

Your liberties are being stolen before your very eyes. Wake up Americans and dare to think and say and do. Dare to cry no more war!”

From there the play transitioned back to 1868 when Du Bois was born. The young Du Bois shared his ancestor’s racially mixed genealogy and the relative racial harmony in which he grew up. This harmony contrasted sharply with his experience as a student in the south. “[At Fisk University] I discovered that the world was split in two halves. Black and white. I pained to describe this forced distinction as the color line, or the veil. A new loyalty replaced my Americanism. Henceforth I would always be regarded and know myself as a Negro.”

On this split Du Bois remarked, “It

is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness. This sense of always looking at oneself through the eyes of others. Of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on with amused contempt and pity.”

These disruptions to prior conceptions were featured prevalently throughout the play as Du Bois encountered the horrors of racist practices.

The loss of innocence is jarringly revealed in multiple instances, once when he witnessed the mutilation of a pregnant woman, and later when he saw the knees of a lynching victim on a butcher’s window display amidst other animal remains.

This latter instance triggered Du Bois’ transition from academia to political activism. Stepping away from his “Ivory Tower,” Du Bois began his lifelong struggle against racial bias, or what he called the “shadow of the veil.”

On activism, Du Bois said, “If one is an activist and not considered dangerous by the powers than one is not doing one’s job.” Clarifying, he remarked, “I do not believe in violent revolution. I expect revolutionary change mainly to come through reason, human sympathy and the education of children. Not by murder.”

“It was a really moving performance that kind of really interestingly covered W.E.B. Du Bois’ life,” said Ashanti Davis, a junior dual major in English and computer science. “It was moving.

It was a good show.”

In a discussion following the play, Assistant Dean Lauren Kozol of the Hofstra University Honors College said, “It really drives home how hard life was for African Americans at the time; that death somehow seems an escape, a positive escape as a young person that you don’t have to go through all these different stages of life.”

The play’s conclusion highlights a litany of causes promoted by Du Bois, among them the abolition of poverty, free universal medical care, free universal education and freedom of religion. Still, the civil rights activist emphasized that to a large extent, “My homeland knows me not.”

Connor Imhoff, a sophomore theater major, said, “I thought it was a really

good piece performed for this particular election cycle. I think a lot of the points were a part of Dr. Du Bois’ ideals and felt very valid and important.”

In the current strained status of American race relations and the upcoming

The Chronicle presidential election, the political activism of Du Bois holds greater importance than ever. Despite the racial advancements during and after Du Bois’ time, the play still reminded the audience that, “Sometimes people can only hear your color.”

Peter Soucy/The Chronicle Brian Richardson as W.E.B. Du Bois in W.E.B. Du Bois: A Man For All Times

A 12 • September 27, 2016

Editorial

The Chronicle

The views and opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section are those of the authors of the articles. They are not an endorsement of the views of The Chronicle or its staff. The Chronicle does not discriminate based on the opinions of the authors.

EXPE RT ANALY S IS Trump and Clinton’s tax policies are imperfect

By Dr. Constantine Alexandrakis PR OFES S O R O F E C O N O MI CS

Debates regarding tax reform usually revolve around the size of taxes. However, equally important is the design of the tax system. For example, consider two parents deciding if they should both work or one should stay at home with the kids, or an older worker deciding whether to retire or continue working. A higher marginal tax rate raises the percentage of each extra earned dollar that they have to pay to the government, thereby reducing their incentive to work. Similarly, since corporate earnings are distributed to their owners, taxing corporate income is equivalent to taxing stockholders, many of which are middle-class individuals who own stocks through their retirement accounts. This reduces the

willingness of stockholders to fund new investment projects that raise productivity and hence wages. For these reasons, most economists argue that we should raise more revenue from taxing socially harmful activities like the emission of gasses that contribute to climate change, and less from taxing income generated from beneficial activities like work or investment.

Economists also argue that a tax code should be simple, have few brackets, and allow few exemptions. In contrast, our tax code is over 70,000 pages long, which raises the cost of compliance as taxpayers devote more resources in finding ways to take advantage of the various exemptions. It also gives special-interest groups an incentive to lobby in order to secure tax-exempt status, and benefits mostly rich individuals who face

a high marginal tax rate. Finally, a good tax system should be able to generate enough revenue to finance the targeted level of spending to a degree that prevents the government debt from rising faster than GDP, a situation that could eventually cause lenders to lose faith in the U.S. government with repercussions similar to those faced by Greece.

In light of the above, Donald Trump’s tax plan has several desirable but also some undesirable elements. The plan cuts marginal tax rates on personal income, reduces the corporate income tax, and simplifies the tax code by reducing the number of brackets – eliminating individual exemptions and capping itemized deductions. According to the Tax Foundation, these reforms are expected to generate faster economic growth and

have a positive impact on employment. On the flip side, even after we account for the positive impact on economic growth, the reforms are expected to reduce revenue between $2.5 trillion and $4 trillion over a decade.

Trump has not yet articulated how he will address the shortfall in order to prevent the debt from rising. Finally, while Americans in all income brackets will pay fewer taxes, the richest taxpayers will benefit more.

Like Trump, Hillary Clinton wants to cap itemized deductions. Contrary to Trump, she wants to increase the estate tax and the marginal tax rate on individuals earning more than $5 million. This would make the U.S. tax system more progressive, although it is already the most progressive among advanced economies. According to the Tax Foundation, these

reforms would reduce GDP by 1% relative to what it would have been over the long run, and have a small negative impact on employment and wages.

Because of this and the fact that few people earn over $5 million per year, revenue would rise by only $200 billion over ten years, hardly enough to fund Clinton’s proposed expansion of social programs. For reference, U.S. GDP in 2015 alone was about $18 trillion. In summary, Clinton proposal largely preserves the status quo. It seems to be the safer choice, but doesn’t address the fact that since 2000 the rate of U.S. economic growth has been about half of what it was from 1950 until 2000. In my opinion, how people feel about the two plans will depend on how satisfied they are with the current economic reality, and their attitude towards risk.

that’s what we need to keep our country secure, then that $4.79 trillion dollar expenditure is worth it ...” But is that really the case? Has this approach to the problem of “terrorism” left the United States or the rest of the world any safer than it was in 2001? And if not, what changes of direction should be made? These are urgent questions that ought to be debated, but have been largely ignored in this election.

While Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton joust over who is tough and smart enough to vanquish America’s enemies, they both embrace the conventional wisdom that American military superiority is essential and that the threat or use of American military power is vital to national security and international order.

It was precisely this ideology and the associated network of vested interests that shaped the Bush administration’s tragically misconceived response to

the attack on 9/11. Instead of treating this as an international crime, requiring apprehension of the perpetrators, the Bush administration went to war with two countries – Afghanistan and Iraq. The perverse result was that the leaders of al-Qaida managed to escape to Pakistan, while the United States became embroiled in armed conflicts that persist until this day.

Sixteen years later Afghanistan is a mess: the economy a shambles, its government corrupt, the Taliban surging and its American financed security forces ineffective. Why do we still have 8,400 troops there?

What good are they doing? And why is there no serious discussion of this calamity in an election year?

Or take the case of Iraq, which had no connection to 9-11 and no significant terrorist presence until the United States chose to invade, stimulating the growth of al-Qaida in Iraq, which in turn spawned ISIS,

which then spread into Syria— increasing the instability and violence there. Donald Trump has rightly criticized Hillary Clinton for her 2002 vote to authorize the Bush Administration to wage war there. But like Clinton, Trump favors the expanded use of US military power to now defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

The list of dysfunctional choices goes on – involving both the Bush and Obama administrations. And the costs have been immense, not merely in dollars, but in Americans killed and wounded by the tens of thousands, civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan by the hundreds of thousands, people displaced from their homes by the millions. And while, it is surely true that today’s carnage in the Middle East has multiple sources, American militarism has made each crisis worse.

As of now, the US has dropped bombs in at least seven Muslim countries, while

also killing by drone strikes an excess of 2,500 people (many non-combatants). Yet in last night’s debate, neither candidate challenged these decisions nor how they multiply America’s enemies.

In one respect, this presidential election offers a clear choice: between a prejudiced, know-nothing amateur, whose belligerence guarantees confrontation and a more experienced, steady and knowledgeable candidate, who is clearly attuned to the complexity of international life. The choice in casting a November ballot seems obvious. But the day after the election, the real choice begins: can a new generation wage a sustained campaign to reverse the course of U.S. militarism which, along with climate change, poses the gravest threat to the well-being of our country?

Not debated: U.S. militarism and its costs

By Dr. Carolyn Eisenberg PR OFE S S O R O F U S D I P L OMAT I C HISTO RY

Here is something that affects every student on this campus: According to a just released Brown University study, the U.S. “war on terrorism” has so far cost American taxpayers approximately $3.6 trillion. When you add to this the administration’s spending request for 2017, including estimated veterans benefits, the total comes to approximately $4.79 trillion.

This is so much money it is hard to even visualize. Also elusive are the societal consequences: the bridges and roads that didn’t get fixed, the public schools that have been under-resourced, the college scholarships that never materialized and the host of federal programs (day care, housing, health care, food stamps, climate change) that were inadequately funded.

One might say, “Well if

op-ed

The Chronicle

September 27, 2016 •A 13

The Party Line

By Ryan Schelwat C ONTR I B U TO R

In the first debate, Donald Trump did an excellent job in conveying his political stances and maintained the same passionate demeanor he has exhibited throughout his campaign, without losing his temper.

Trump spoke prolifically on crime and how he would address it, as well as other critical issues for Americans like trade, immigration and jobs. He successfully exposed Secretary Hillary Clinton’s “flip-flop” behavior by highlighting her changing stances on the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) deal and her own inherent bias with her now infamous “superpredator” quote. He also pithily

By Alanis Alvarez C ONTRI B U TO R

The best way to begin reviewing the first presidential debate is by quoting Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, when she told the audience to “listen to what you just heard.”

Just as a reminder, some of the things heard at the first debate were: Donald Trump saying “big league” as if that is impressive, bragging about evading federal taxes and claiming stop-and-frisk was

By Alex Hayes C ONTR I B U TO R

As many of you most likely noticed by the end of yesterday’s debate, there were only two candidates on stage. Third parties went unrepresented, as they have been since 1992. I’m not going to harp on that fact – you’ve probably heard about as much as you can take already from the diehard Jill Stein, Gary Johnson or Vermin Supreme supporters in your life. But this leaves a question for those inclined to support a third-party candidate like the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

Our party can essentially be

Trump holds his own on stage

rejected the notion that social and economic problems can be solved by government spending by reminding voters of the $20 trillion debt deficit that we as a country must now face.

Clinton was unable to achieve her primary objectives: to convince people she is trustworthy and to show a more compassionate and “human” side. Trump, on the other hand, for the first half of the debate, managed to exemplify leadership and restraint – skills which many doubted he was capable of after his aggressive performances in the primary debates and on the campaign trail. It was an indisputable win for Trump, thanks in part to reduced expectations and greater stage presence.

That said, Clinton was arguably successful in her rhetorical defense of her actions regarding Iraq, Iran and Libya – a tough thing to defend when you see the results of her stewardship, or lack thereof, in the media every day. In an ostensible move to retain progressive voters, her stated policies were reminiscent of Senator Bernie Sanders’ – which will possibly win over any doubters from his supporters.

As many commentators preached prior to the debate, the role of the moderator was wholly unsuccessful in maintaining order or responses to his questions. In addition, the topics of cybercrime and the release of Trump’s tax returns were given

too much time relative to their overall importance.

Inversely, there needed to be more emphasis regarding Clinton’s proposed corporate restructuring schemes and plans to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. These sentiments were characteristic of the radical segment of the far-left and Trump should have challenged her on this instead of using his endorsement from the NRA as an excuse to agree with her. He also should have discredited any false implications that she was a member of the middle class.

While there were a number of factually incorrect or factually dubious statements made by both sides, I believe the most

egregious were Trump’s accusation that the Federal Reserve was politicized and Secretary Clinton’s claim that stop-andfrisk was ruled unconstitutional. Clinton’s “Trumped-Up, Trickle-Down” was meant to soar, but it fell from the sky.

Conversely, I think the line “call Sean Hannity” needs to enter the vernacular. Finally, we also need to be more critical of our debate process, and the fact that thirdparty candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were excluded has drawn some well-earned criticism.

not unconstitutional. Not only are these things either wrong or plainly illegal, but he also managed to interrupt her numerous times in order to really nail these solid points across.

While Clinton stood on stage as a proudly prepared candidate, Trump spouted lies even about his own actions. His temperament that is “so much better than hers” is a persona built on racist, sexist and disgusting lies. Climate change is real and Hispanic women are not housekeepers, Donald.

Clinton should not be ashamed of being prepared to lead a country, and the fact that a government official is debating a reality TV star for the highest political office of the United States is sexism at its core.

While Trump attacks Clinton’s husband as though he were the person running for president, she spoke about criminal justice reform in order to bring communities across America together. Clinton is not the same as her husband,

and treating his choices as hers discounts her actions and, once again, shows that Trump doesn’t see Clinton as his equal in any way.

The Secretary of State also correctly stated that Trump began his political career with the racist lie that our first AfricanAmerican president was not a citizen of the United States.

If Trump claims to be the most patriotic and greatest representative of our country, why does he compare us to a third world country? Does Trump

even know what a real third world country looks like?

Clinton does. Her experience in the field is not a joke – it is a requirement to be president and has inspired policies that work to equalize all minorities, which is far different than Trump’s hateful and painfully uninformed rhetoric.

divided into two groups of supporters: those who hate Hillary Clinton because she’s not progressive enough, and those who like Hillary Clinton but don’t think she’s progressive enough.

Based on her performance in yesterday’s debate, I’ve decided that I fall firmly in the latter group. I like Clinton. I think she’s an intelligent opponent with great ideas and I think her opponent represents a significant threat to our country, but I wish she would push a bit further. To those who hate Clinton, my advice is clear: vote for Jill Stein.

But for people like me who like Clinton, the choice is more

complicated.

A lot of us aren’t old enough to remember the 2000 election, but most of us know the story – the results were so close, if just a few Green Party supporters had voted for Al Gore instead, he would have won the election.

A lot of people who are swayed by the Green Party’s message may worry that the same could happen this year, and may worry about joining the Greens for fear of hostility towards Clinton supporters. To this group, myself included, I offer a solution.

There is a select group of states that can be considered up-for-grabs by any stretch of

the imagination. As the election stands right now, those states are Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Arizona, Virginia, Georgia and Maine. While it’s a long list, these states account for only about a third of the voter pool.

To these voters, I offer absolution: A vote for Hill is a vote for Jill. It’s perfectly reasonable to think there’s too much risk in not backing Clinton.

But for voters in other states, those that are already in the bag for Clinton or Trump, a vote for Stein has more impact than

a vote for Clinton. If the Green Party receives just five percent of the popular vote in 2016, the candidate in 2020 will be considered a major candidate by the federal government. This will entitle them to campaign funding equal to that offered to the major parties. Just five percent is an attainable goal, and for voters in most states, one they can work toward without hurting Clinton’s chances for the presidency in 2016.

Clinton outshines Trump in debate

A vote for Jill is a vote for Hill

Ryan Schelwat is a member of the Hofstra Republicans

Alanis Alvarez is the Vice President of the Democrats of Hofstra University

Alex Hayes is the VicePresident for the Hofstra Green Party

Editorial

A 14 • September 27, 2016

The Chronicle

Clinton prepared, Trump did not ... and it showed

By Jordan Laird

SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R ONI CL E

Donald Trump was uncharacteristically reserved at the beginning of the debate, but the civility did not last long. He soon began blaming Hillary Clinton for anything that has happened in her entire career as a politician, as if she has always had sole control over the decisions of this country. This strategy is consistent with his framing of Clinton as a political insider that represents everything wrong with American politics.

Very early on last night, Clinton said, “I have a feeling that by the end of this evening I’m going to be blamed for everything that’s ever happened.” To which Trump replied, “Why not?” But Clinton kept her composure and replied, “Why

not? Yeah, why not?”

Her calm but commanding demeanor would remain throughout the night. It became clear very early on in the debate that her attention to details, facts and preparation payed off. Meanwhile, Trump, who had decided to stick to his usual off-the-cuff antics, seemed to just be repeating everything he’s already said during his campaign, while becoming more and more flustered.

Granted, there wasn’t a huge debacle on Trump’s end like I thought there might have been last night.

But how could Trump possibly prepare to defend his outlandish past claims and actions? During the debate, he didn’t take ownership of, nor apologize for calling global warming a hoax, nor claiming Obama was not born here, even after his birth certificate was

released. Instead, he denied facts conveniently and sometimes awkwardly pivoted to other topics.

Clinton, on the other hand, was prepared to take responsibility for the largest scandal that has haunted her campaign: her emails. Clinton said, “I’m not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake and I take responsibility for that.” People make mistakes and more than that, politicians who have worked for decades in the nitty-gritty world of policymaking have to inevitably make mistakes along the way. I respect a politician who can admit her mistakes, promise to do better in the future and move forward.

Donald Trump has not taken ownership of any of his mistakes during his entire campaign. He simply plows ahead with little attention to facts. Clinton even said at one

point, “Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts.”

Even under pressure to call out Trump on his lies, moderator Lester Holt only attempted to fact-check Trump once throughout the night on the issue of stop-and-frisk. Many of the things Trump said were half-truths or simply not true at all.

For example, Trump said Clinton had been “fighting ISIS [her] entire adult life.” In reality, the Islamic State grew out of other terror groups and only branded itself as ISIS in 2014, when Clinton was out of office. Trump dug into Clinton hard on Iraq and reiterated that he opposed the war in Iraq before it began. However, during the buildup to the war, he had voiced his support in an interview with Howard Stern.

Trump also complained that the

United States paid $1.7 billion to Iran as part of the nuclear deal. The U.S. payed Iran money, but it was Iran’s money for military goods never delivered to Iran after the Iranian Revolution.

Trump may claim that Clinton represents crooked American politics, but he is actually the one who speaks in half-truths and lies.

I don’t know what would be worse: if he’s distorting the facts or simply not knowledgeable enough on these important issues in order to speak in an informed manner. Either way, he can’t be trusted as commander in chief. Clinton may have skeletons in her closet, but no more than Trump and at least she owns up to her mistakes.

Have an opinion?

Share it with us!

Email us at: HofstraChronicleEditorials@gmail.com

Hofstra debate illicits harsh opinions from community

By Hannah Johnson

SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R ONI CL E

Hofstra University has now held its third consecutive presidential debate and has given students, once again, the opportunity of a lifetime.

Melissa Connolly, Vice President of University Relations, said that the process that Hofstra has to go through to be considered for the debate is more than some may think.

Two years in advance, an application must be submitted to ensure the university meets all the demanding requirements to host a presidential debate. Some of these requirements include: ample support from law enforcement and local government, a large debate hall, enough square footage for media and the availability of hotel rooms.

“18 months out, the Commission [on Presidential Debates] does site surveys to see the lay of the land and to meet the team that will be working the debate,” Connolly said. “A year out they announce the sites.”

After Wright State University dropped out of hosting the debate, Hofstra University, the alternate site, had only 10 weeks to prepare.

The preparation for the debate was also problematic for students. Some examples were the limited availability of parking, road closures and a lot of annoying rules that students needed to follow. Connolly and others in charge of the debate do realize that this can be hard on the students.

“We try to make the campus as exciting as possible to make

up for the fact that it is inconvenient to have a debate, but every great opportunity brings with it inconveniences,” she said.

Not only did Hofstra give some students a chance to watch the debate, the university also hosted educational programs around campus. These programs included: performances, comedy segments, keynote addresses and panels around issues.

Hofstra also gave volunteers the opportunity to help set up and receive an inside look on the debate itself, and of course, gave some students their 15 minutes of fame on one of the many news broadcasts that were present throughout debate weekend.

Although Hofstra gave these substantial opportunities to its students, some other people

didn’t think it was so amazing.

A Facebook war started between supporters of Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and the students and alumni of Hofstra.

Johnson’s supporters started posting one-star reviews on the university’s Facebook page, all due to the fact that Johnson didn’t have enough support to be invited to the debate.

Connolly didn’t think the comments hurt the university at all, stating “I think that it is definitely great for the reputation, but we [host] it because we think that it can be transformational for the students.”

Hofstra’s community has also fought back. With multiple students and alumni trying to defend the university, they countered all of the negative remarks with five-star reviews.

“I can understand people being frustrated with not having their candidate participate in the debate. However, it is not Hofstra’s fault,” said Antonio Grillo, a junior at Hofstra. “So don’t bash your feelings about your candidate not participating [within] the university. This university provides students with some of the most incredible opportunities … I am proud to be a student of Hofstra University.”

Many students and alumni have flooded the university’s Facebook page with comments like this to counter the awful reviews. “It is a political tactic,” Connolly said. “I think it will rebound, I don’t know what we are going to do about it yet, but it has been great to see students and alums standing up.”

op-ed

The Chronicle

September 27, 2016 •A 15

@Millennials: Stop opting out of the political system

By Alexi Cohan

SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R ONI CL E

You see it on social media, hear it on campus and read about it in the news: negative commentary about our presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

While you may get sick of being bombarded with political opinions every day, this particular election is unlike any America has experienced before.

Somehow, two extremely unpopular political figures have become this year’s presidential nominees, and complaints about Trump and Clinton have

By Daniel Nguyen

taken our society by storm.

Despite the fact that you may hate the candidates, it is not an excuse to detach oneself from politics or important campus events like the debate.

Disappointment in the candidates and outright dislike is understandable. It is even sometimes a good thing, as it incites passion in voters. But refusing to vote, follow the election, watch the debate or participate in American politics for those reasons alone is inherently wrong. Engaging in politics is a civic duty and a privilege for American citizens.

So many Americans already choose not to follow politics or

vote. It is unacceptable when a person who is typically politically engaged gives up on the process because of dissatisfaction with the candidates. No one should have to vote for someone they don’t like and no one is forced to spend time following politics if they don’t want to, but seeing impassioned students completely detach themselves from this amazing experience is disappointing.

Hosting the presidential debate at Hofstra is an honor and an experience that should not be wasted by any student.

The chance to be immersed in our political system by means of a presidential debate is

something that we may never experience again. Whether a student loves or hates Trump or Clinton, they should embrace this unique opportunity in any way that they can. There will always be prominent figures in American politics that you may dislike, but that is not a reason to disengage.

As such, it is crucial that we as students and young adults involve and immerse ourselves in the political process. We should actively participate in special events – like the debate – that are presented to us. When necessary, we should put out of our minds the hateful comments surrounding political figures

and continue to believe in and empower our government to make change.

Sure, our presidential candidates for this election are not great. They have lied, attacked each other, said offensive things and have been investigated for crimes. They do not embody the characteristics of a president. But please, do not use this as an excuse to detach yourself from politics as a whole, or you will have wasted the experience of a lifetime by ignoring the debate. You will regret it.

has featured heated criticisms from both sides of the political divide. All of the public vitriol spewed between the two major parties built up to this climactic confrontation.

With each appearance, Clinton and Trump’s collective dominance delved deeper into the American collective consciousness, and Monday’s presidential debate, being the first of three, was the most media-charged of the election cycle thus far.

As demonstrated by the Democratic and Republican primary debates earlier this year, nominees who spoke the most garnered the largest amount of support. By depriving third

party candidates a voice in the presidential debate, political diversity was effectively erased in favor of a dichotomous debate.

At this point in the election cycle, focus has narrowed from a plethora of major party candidates to the final two: diametrically opposed nominees who each inspire a good deal of their own unique controversy. With the highest disapproval ratings of any two party candidates in the nation’s presidential history, there is a clear need for more qualifying voices in the 2016 presidential race.

So why have third party candidates experienced exclusion from presidential debates? The

Commission on Presidential Debates instated a minimum viable polling number of 15 percent for candidates participating in major debates. The commission itself operates under the control of the two major political parties, and presidential debates are sponsored by private entities who have garnered criticism in the past.

Propounding the principal of free speech in a democratic society, a large amount of millennial voters have taken a shine to third party candidates. The result has drained supporters from both political parties. This phenomenon is not new, third party candidates have played

a major role in shifting voter support in the past. In the 2000 presidential election, the popularity of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan cost then Vice President Al Gore the presidential office.

With less than 50 days to the general election, Monday’s presidential debate has helped shape the public’s opinion on the presidential race. Excluding third party candidates from the debate unfairly obscures American public voting perception and deprives the general public of their right to deliberate decision in the most consequential race in the world.

dent Union all realize that we need to discuss real issues.

However, nobody on this campus wants to do that.

Koorosh Leibowitz, sophomore finance major and Trump supporter, asserted that Clinton “is a liar and [you] can’t trust her,” but has no problems with any of her supporters. Hillary’s supporters, however, have had a problem with Leibowitz and his attire. “A gentleman was surprised that I had a high enough GPA to get into Hofstra,” Leibowitz said.

Ariel McHowne, a freshman and fervent Hillary supporter, lambasted Trump supporters. “They’re all morons,” McHowne said. She also men-

tioned that people were avoiding students dressed in Trump garb. Despite this, McHowne did agree that Trump’s supporters have the right to voice their own opinions.

Every person interviewed said they would invite conversation with someone who has a different perspective, yet there is a shortage of these conversations.

That is the problem with our country right now; citizens are only willing to have an honest conversation with someone they agree with. When faced with the opposition, students tend to back down or not say how they truly feel in fear of backlash.

Democracy should not work like that. Democracy is built upon the free exchange of ideas and different points of view, not embarrassment and half-truths.

An open conversation is the only way to solve the problems Americans are currently facing. Republicans cannot defeat radical Islamic terrorism by themselves. Democrats cannot fight for reproductive rights by themselves. Minorities cannot defeat police brutality without the help of the majority.

Salvatore Guardino a senior video/TV business major and Johnson supporter, also advocated for open conversation. He put it simply, “Nobody wants to sit down and talk.”

Good things come when we just sit down and talk about the issues present in our society.

For example, in 1964, Republicans and Democrats worked together with President Lyndon B. Johnson to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, closing the door on the Jim Crow Era. A discussion between two opposing thinkers is bound to be uncomfortable. However, being uncomfortable is a part of growing and becoming better than you once were. Nobody that is serious about their health stops working out because it’s uncomfortable. This is the same thing, except now with much bigger stakes.

Excluding third parties hurts democracy

SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O N I CL E

Since the formation of the two-party system in America, third party candidates have suffered from the dominance of major party politics, especially since the emergence of televised debates.

Prominent third party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson faced exclusion from the Sept. 26 presidential debate.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of the first debate between Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican Party candidate Donald Trump.

There’s no doubt the past year

Political debates: Necessary for politicians and students

By Tanner Way

SPEC I A L TO T H E C H RONI CL E

Americans have had a weird 15 or so months. This election season has resembled a Comedy Central Roast more than a true presidential campaign, and our societal issues have only become more divisive. As the debate neared, Republicans, Democrats and single-issue voters voiced their opinions – but it doesn’t even matter.

We, as students at Hofstra and actors in the political process, must have a conversation.

Everyone knows it – Donald Trump supporters, Hillary Clinton supporters, Gary Johnson supporters and the Black Stu-

sports

A 16 • September 27, 2016

The Chronicle

Soccer struggling in quest for repeat CAA title

Cam Keough/The Chronicle Hofstra throttled College of Charleston 4-0 to improve to 2-0 in CAA

By Kevin Carroll SPORTS E D I TO R

The Hofstra men’s soccer team’s journey back to the CAA title game has been a long and bumpy one.

The Pride currently sits at 4-3-1 with a 2-0 mark in CAA play after wins over James Madison and most recently, a 4-0 shellacking of the College of Charleston on Saturday night at Shuart Stadium.

“I think we’ve been solid in most games,” said Hofstra head coach Richard Nuttall about the season so far. “The Achilles’ heel at the moment is that we’ve not been taking chances.”

Last year’s squad produced one of the most successsful seasons in recent memory, capping off a terrific regular season with a CAA championship.

Not content with merely advancing to the program’s first NCAA Tournament since 2006, the Pride left its stamp on the national tournament.

The Pride knocked off Lehigh University with a Daniel Massey header in overtime to advance to the second round of the tournament.

Hofstra’s run would come to an end in the second round, succumbing to a very powerful Georgetown team, but the run left this year’s squad with a lot to live up to.

So far, the Pride has been off to a somewhat sluggish start, at least on paper.

But the Pride’s nonconference schedule was a proverbial minefield, a slate that included games against three ranked opponents in UNC Charlotte, Boston College and Syracuse. Hofstra played these opponents tough, outshooting Boston College and taking second-ranked Syracuse down to the wire. “[Against] Boston College, I thought we were unfortunate not to get something out of that one. Syracuse was the better team on the day but we were right there.”

A major part of the Pride’s struggles through the first half of the season could be found on the front line with Hofstra’s attack.

Before the four-goal outburst against Charleston Saturday night, the Pride had scored just six goals in its first seven games.

“I think we’re missing a little bit in the engine room,” Nuttall said. “Players have been a little bit tense, they’ve been a little under-confident.”

“I think the good news is we’re getting the chances, the bad news is that we haven’t been finishing as well as we should.”

Of those first six goals, two came off of the foot of CAA Preseason Player of the Year Joseph Holland. Unfortunately for the Pride, both of Holland’s goals came in the season opener, a 3-1 victory over Long Island rival Stony Brook.

Since that win, Holland has been held scoreless as opposing defenses have clued in on the Englishman.

“I think the term ‘bottled up’ is very appropriate,” Nuttall said. “A lot of attention goes on Joe … he gives room for other people. It’s just part of soccer.”

With Holland being the main focus for opposing defenses, the rest of the offense around him has had to look for their own opportunities at being a catalyst in the Hofstra offense.

Through the first half of the season, Hofstra had many opportunities on goal, launching 92 shots on goal through the Pride’s first seven games of the season.

That large number of shots, however, just wasn’t translating to goals for the Pride, as the team found itself in the CAA cellar in terms of goals scored.

On Saturday night in Shuart Stadium, the Pride’s one-nightonly temporary home due to the Hofstra Soccer Stadium being cut off because of the 2016 presidential debate, the floodgates finally opened for the Pride.

Hofstra nearly equaled its entire goals total from the entire first half of the season, beating the Charleston goalkeeper four times en route to a convincing shutout victory over the Cougars.

Forward Danny Elliott has been one of the main forces driving the Hofstra offense alongside Holland.

Elliott leads the Pride with four goals through the first eight games of the season, including two against Charleston on Saturday night.

Elliott, a junior from across the pond in Nottingham, England, has already doubled his scoring output from last season, scoring only two goals last year.

Other contributors up front include Meshack Eshun Addy, a familiar face from last season who has tallied two goals this season, and freshman Luke Brown, who scored his first career goal in the season opener.

Brown also had a nifty assist to get the scoring started against Charleston, and he looks to have a bright future ahead of him.

“Luke’s a quality player and he’s got a great sense for the game,” Nuttall said. “I have no doubt he will be a source of many goals for Hofstra.”

On the back line, Hofstra has been dealing with a two-goalie rotation for the majority of the season.

Hofstra’s two netminders, Alex Ashton and Leonard Arkhanhelskyi, have split time for the majority of the season, with Arkhanhelskyi taking the first-half duties before being relieved by Ashton.

While Arkhanhelskyi took the reins for the last four games of

the non-conference slate, going the distance in net for each of those contests, the two goalies have resumed splitting time in CAA play.

“We’re in a very good spot, we’ve got two quality keepers,” Nuttall said.

As the defending CAA champs, the target on the Pride’s back is huge.

Nuttall’s squad will look to remain unblemished in conference play this weekend, shipping up to Boston to take on the Northeastern University Huskies on Wednesday evening.

A win on Wednesday will further cement the Pride as a legitimate threat to repeat as CAA champs, a remarkable feat that Nuttall feels is within reach for Hofstra.

“Absolutely, but it’s not going to be easy,” Nuttall said when asked about Hofstra’s chances of remaining atop the CAA mountain. “If we repeat, it will be an incredible feat against quality teams.”

Check out our feature on freshman Luke Brown next week!

Photo Courtesy of Hofstra Athletics Danny Elliott and Richard Nuttall talk strategy during a game this season.

SPORTS

The Chronicle

September 27, 2016 •A 17

Offense explodes in 4-0 rout of Charleston

By Alexandra Licata

SPEC IA L TO T H E C H R O NI CL E

Hofstra advanced to 2-0 in conference play by defeating the Cougars of the College of Charleston 4-0, blanking the opponent for the Pride’s third straight shutout win.

Freshman Luke Brown had his first career assist just eight minutes into the game, breaking away and passing to junior Meshack Eshun Addy.

“I don’t usually hit it with my right foot so when I swung my right foot and it went in I was just excited. We tried to get up at halftime because we haven’t done that this season,” Brown said after the game.

Eshun Addy shot the ball into the lower right corner of the net, beating Charleston goalkeeper Kevin Shields for his second goal of the season.

Junior Danny Elliott found his way into the scoring column in the 15th minute, knifing his way through the Cougars’ defense.

Elliott ripped off a shot that slipped past Shields into the upper left corner for his third goal of the season and the Pride’s second of the game.

The significance of the goal was emphasized by Elliott’s impressive cartwheel into a backflip in celebration.

The second goal was the first time either team has scored more than one goal in their matchups.

The matchup featured a sibling rivalry as Joseph Holland squared up against his younger brother, Cornell, a sophomore at Charleston.

On playing his brother, Joseph said, “The first few minutes were a bit surreal but after that he was just another normal player.

“I wasn’t saying to my teammates, ‘Pick up my brother,’ I was saying, ‘Pick up number 12.’ I kicked him in the beginning and whispered in his ear, but other than that he played very, very well tonight.”

Hofstra’s defense proved effective yet again, holding off the Cougars by not providing any solid opportunities to take shots. The Cougars finished the game with zero shots on goal and went 0-6 on corner kicks.

The Pride made good use of its breakaway opportunities, keeping the Charleston defense off-balance with good footwork.

With 10 minutes remaining, Elliott scored his second unassisted goal of the night and fourth of the season – this time without the backflip celebration.

Two minutes later, sophomore Daniel Massey scored his first

Cam Keough/The Chronicle Meshack Eshun Addy scores his second goal of the season in Hofstra’s 4-0 victory over Charleston on Saturday.

goal of the season with an assist from junior Jon Fraser.

The sizable lead allowed head coach Richard Nuttall to use twelve subs throughout the game, giving players an opportunity to gain experience on the field.

Sophomores Krishna Nainani and goalie Brian Rubinaccio both made their first appearances for the Pride this season.

“These 24 players have been outstanding in practice and they’ve been working hard.

They make the starters better, so I’m very happy for them,” Nuttall said on his ability to play his subs.

With the impressive victory, Hofstra improves to 4-3-1 on the season, and the Pride remains unbeaten in the CAA, imroving to 2-0.

The College of Charleston falls to 2-4-1 on the season, with a 0-1-1 mark in conference competition.

Hofstra will look to continue its unbeaten run through the

Colonial, taking on the Northeastern University Huskies on Wednesday, Sept. 28 at Edward S. Parsons Field in Boston.

Check Out Our Website: http:// thehofstrachronicle. com/category/sports/

HOFSTRA ATHLETIC CALENDAR Away

9/27

9/28

9/29

9/30

10/1

10/2

10/3

Home

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Monday

Volleyball

James Madison University 7 p.m.

William & Mary - 1 p.m.

Women’s Soccer

College of Charleston 7 p.m.

UNCW - 1 p.m.

Men’s Soccer

Field Hockey

Northeastern University 6 p.m.

University of Delaware - 7 p.m.

Fairfield University 3:30 p.m.

Quinnipiac University - 3 p.m.

sports

A 18 • September 27, 2016

The Chronicle

Hofstra falls behind early, loses at Delaware

By Felipe Fontes

SPEC IA L TO TH E CH R O N ICLE

Cam Keough/The Chronicle Jill Mulholland scored the lone goal for Hofstra in Sunday’s loss to UDel.

The Pride took its second consecutive loss in conference play Sunday afternoon as the Delaware women’s soccer team held on to an early surge after scoring two goals in the first 35 minutes of game time.

Delaware dominated in time of possession, leading to 15 shots compared to Hofstra’s nine, with an incredible 11 of those 15 being shots on goal.

The fast start by the Blue Hens began as Madison Brosler reeled in the corner kick from Mikala Kin and sent it to the back of the net in the 15th minute.

Following a couple of unsuccessful equalizing attempts by Hofstra’s Jill Mulholland, Delaware connected once more on a single-handed effort by senior forward Natalie Zelenky.

Zelenky, the leading goal scorer for this team, had threat-

ened on quite a few occasions, most memorably in the 31st minute as she broke away from the defense but directed the shot right into the goalkeeper’s hands.

This time however, she made sure to make it count and gave the Blue Hens a dominant 2-0 lead heading into halftime.

Although the slow start for the Pride and a couple of missed shots by Mulholland, Hofstra’s undisputed leader couldn’t be kept off the board.

Four minutes before the end of the half, Mulholland was able to dribble to the middle of the field and drill one past the keeper to score the first goal in the game for the Pride, as well as in conference play following the 3-0 loss to Drexel.

With this goal, the Pride went into the half with some momentum and only looking at a 2-1 deficit.

Lackluster play continued for Hofstra on the defensive side of

the ball throughout the second half.

Delaware was able to keep a constant attack firing six shots in contrast to Hofstra’s two.

If it weren’t for Mehring’s six saves, the Blue Hens could have pulled away with ease, as Hofstra seemed out of sync for yet another half of crucial conference play.

Mulholland had one more valiant effort in the 64th minute as she sent a strong header headed for the goal that ended up being saved on an outstanding effort

by Delaware’s Kailyn Rekos.

The Pride’s slow start in conference play is an unexpected occurrence after a pretty strong stretch of games in non-conference games resulting in a 6-2-1 record.

The 2-1 loss serves as a building block for Hofstra as the Pride tries to figure out a way to end up on the winning side of the scoreboard for the first time this season.

SPORTS

The Chronicle

September 27, 2016 •A 19

Pride falters against UNCW, now 0-2 in conference

By Steven Wolff STAFF W R I T E R

The Hofstra volleyball team fell in its second straight contest, as University of North Carolina at Wilmington beat Hofstra three sets to one.

The Pride won a close first set, by a final score of 26-24.

However, the Seahawks would come roaring back, taking the next three sets.

In the second set, the Pride was tied with UNCW, however the Seahawks went on a late 12-2 run to seal the set, and eventually the victory.

Hofstra senior Hannah Klemm recorded 27 assists, while Luisa Sydlik added an extra 13.

Additionally, freshman Laura Masciullo led Hofstra with 17 kills, while season leader Veronika Kostova posted an additional 12 kills.

Kostova’s 12 digs marked her 13th match with double-

digit kills. She has been a very consistent player for the Pride all season.

For UNCW, Maddy Kline was a thorn in the Pride’s side, as she led them with 19 kills on the day.

Hofstra and UNCW each had 52 kills in the match, while Hofstra led in the assist department, outscoring the Seahawks 50-43.

However, the main issue was the turnovers once again.

Hofstra had 27, while UNCW had 18.

Errors have been a big problem for Hofstra to start CAA play, as that played a major role in their last loss to the College of Charleston.

The Pride had 35 errors and 62 errors in the past two contests.

Furthermore, the Pride has started well at home, going an undefeated 4-0 so far at the Mack Fitness Center.

The Pride has been playing all its home games in the Fitness Center due to the presidential debate.

On the road, Hofstra is now 2-3, but will come home in its next match to face James Madison.

The loss marks the second straight for Hofstra falling to 10-5 on the season.

This was after the team won 10 of its first 13 matches, including the first four to start the season.

Moreover, the Pride has now started CAA play at 0-2, and things don’t get any easier.

Hofstra will host James Madison on Friday at the Fitness Center.

The Dukes have started 2-0 in the conference and are also 10-5 on the season.

In its last time out on the floor, James Madison beat Elon three sets to one on Friday night.

Cam Keough/The Chronicle The Hofstra volleyball team gathers to talk strategy during the game.

Strong defense leads field hockey to victory

By Anders Jorstad STA FF WRITER

Cam Keough/The Chronicle Colby Hussong assisted on one of Claudia Marin Samper’s goals on Sunday.

The Hofstra Pride field hockey squad piled on the offensive pressure and pulled out its fourth straight victory in a 3-2 win over St. Francis on the road.

After a game at UMass Lowell, in which both teams took more than 20 shots, the Pride aimed to prevent easy looks against the Red Flash.

Hofstra opened up with Claudia Marin Samper scoring off a turnover just 8:34 into the game. The goal plants Marin Samper in double-digit goal category just 10 games into the campaign.

A few minutes later, the Red Flash maneuvered itself into a penalty corner.

Brea Seabrook struck it home to tie the game at one goal apiece.

The contest remained tied until – with just a minute left – Stella Schoen went on a charge.

The German found a pass from captain Colby Hussong and sailed it through the goal posts for her seventh score of

the year.

Hofstra found a lot of offensive opportunities in the first half, taking 13 shots to St. Francis’ two and earning four penalty corner opportunities.

With the score sitting at 2-1 Pride advantage, Emily Gallagher found the back of the net in the 55th minute for her fourth score on the season.

As the contest came to a close, Hannah Retherford got herself a score to cut the Pride lead to 3-2. However, it was too little too late as St. Francis fell to Hofstra.

Hofstra’s offense was the star of the show.

The Pride took 28 total shots to just four for the Red Flash.

Hofstra defense did an excellent job of keeping the ball from getting to goalkeeper Lauren Saltus, who’s had some solid showings over the course of the Pride winning streak.

Saltus’ game left something to be desired as the senior allowed two goals without registering a save.

While the game certainly was not her best, her role as the main

goalkeeper for the team appears safe.

She has allowed fewer than four goals in each game she has played this season.

The Pride moves to 6-4 with the victory as St. Francis falls to 6-4.

With just a couple of games to go until conference play, the Pride appears to be getting hot at just the right time.

Hofstra returns home for a brief home stand against the Fairfield Stags on Friday.

The Stags have struggled mightily this season, posting a 1-8 record inculding five losses in a row leading into this game.

Fairfield found itself on the wrong end of a 4-0 decision against the University of Virginia.

Gametime is 3:30 p.m. at the Hofstra Field Hockey Stadium.

Back Cover: Lester Holt addresses audience for the first 2016 presidential debate on Monday, Sept. 26.

The Hofstra

Chronicle

Expectations Don’t Holt Up Lester Holt struggles to maintain Law & Order on debate stage Jesse Saunders/The Chronicle