Last week’s discussion with Kellyanne Conway at a Harvard forum took a turn when the question-and-answer section got heated.
A former adviser to Donald Trump, who has often been criticized for spin about the president-elect and violating the Hatch Act by disparaging his political opponents, spoke about Trump’s recent presidential victory and what he felt the Democratic Party went wrong. .
The forum, moderated by Institute of Politics Director Seti Warren, sparked a lively interaction between Conway and the students in the audience.
Jane Petersen, a second-year master’s student in public policy, spoke to Conway about her time working in the Trump administration, and how her answers (“alternative facts”) were about survival and strategy. I asked if it had come loose.
Conway became defensive.
“We need to be fair. You can’t go back eight years and do that,” he said, turning the spotlight back on Petersen and asking him to explain what he meant by “alternative facts.” Conway said afterwards.
“I asked you a question about your role in the White House. … I decided to come here because I know I will still be taking questions from students,” Petersen responded.
“Okay, let me answer that. Thank you for your question. I gave you a good chance there, and it’s a great chance for you, because I don’t need any more airtime. , because I can get enough,” Conway replied.
Petersen said in a statement to GBH News that the question was intentional. “We can gain a lot from people of different ideologies who come to our campuses to defend their actions and positions,” she wrote. “I wanted to use that opportunity to ask tough but fair questions.”
The forum ran for 30 minutes beyond the scheduled one hour time frame.
Jobin Steyermark, a first-year Harvard Law School student, asked Conway the first question of the night about the potential for President Trump’s leadership to lose credibility following recent controversial Cabinet picks. Ta.
“We have a process, just like Senate confirmation hearings and nominees. It’s going to be on TV, so you can watch it. It’s going to be available to everyone. It’s going to be transparent,” Conway said. That’s true. Those who ask questions are not sworn in. Those who answer questions are sworn in. You can play this game all day long.
Conway continued, “I can say, ‘Wow, Alejandro Mayorkas said the border is secure, it’s closed in 2021, lies, lies, 72% of Americans are closing the border while in crisis. I really wish I hadn’t been so willing to call it a crisis.” Time. That would have saved them – Laken Riley would have saved them, Rachel Morin would have saved them – in fact, they probably would have lived. It would have helped Jocelyn Nangaray. So I can do this all day long. ”
Steyermark later told GBH News: “We need a clear explanation of how appointing free-spirited, lawless ideologues to key Cabinet positions will serve the security and prosperity of the American people. I’m waiting for it,” he said.
He added: “Unfortunately, President Trump’s representatives were unable to answer that question and had to save face by rehashing trite anecdotes about the outgoing administration’s weaknesses. In my opinion. This suggests a lack of preparation for the task of real governance.”
As the Q&A continued, the tone of the evening changed and became less confrontational.
Greg Cosman, a senior at Harvard University, later told GBH News that while he felt “a little nervous” about the heated exchange before him, he was “not sure how she would be able to restore trust in her sources.” I appreciated the opportunity to hear her honest opinion about what she thinks.” ”
Conway also took time to criticize a recent op-ed by the IOP president calling for the organization to be “no longer nonpartisan.”
“People trying to deplatform MAGA, oh, that’s really going to help wash away the 76 million votes that Donald Trump just got,” Conway said.
Mr. Conway praised Mr. Warren’s response and affirmed that the IOP will maintain its bipartisan position. Earlier this week, Warren reiterated that promise in a forum with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
“What I want to emphasize is the fact that the IOP is very proud that we are a bipartisan organization. From my position and ours, even when we disagree, It’s important to hear different opinions,” Warren said.
Since President Trump’s victory, efforts to maintain nonpartisanship on college campuses have intensified. The opinion boards of Boston-area student newspapers are a constant source of contentious exchange. The Harvard Crimson Editorial Board published an article urging conservative students to “stop hiding,” which prompted a rebuttal from the president of the John Adams Society, and Harvard’s conservatives decided to return to campus. He claimed that he did not owe anything.
Meanwhile, Boston University responded to a letter from BC Republicans calling for an end to the “dehumanization” of Trump voters, noting that the organization had been involved in hosting controversial speakers in the past. The message was criticized as “dishonest.”
“You have the right to speak up, to stand up, to be patient and to show up…but how do you do that without taking the voice box away from other students and telling them that they are somehow inferior? Yes,” Conway said.
Leila Chalawi is a student at Harvard University and a member of the IOP Student Advisory Board.
