Illustration by AdrÍa FruÍtos

The American people have spoken. Their pronouncements may have been a bit murkier than the hyperventilating press made them out to be. Democrats in fact gained seats in the US House, although not enough to control the chamber. Four of the five Senate races in hotly contested states where Joe Biden prevailed in 2020 went to the Democrats. Seven of the 10 states with abortion rights on the ballot passed measures in favor of reproductive freedom. An eighth, Florida, failed to protect women’s freedom only because the 57 percent who voted for it were thwarted by the Sunshine State’s adoption of a 60 percent threshold for ballot measures.

One electoral judgment, however, was entirely clear. By a narrow popular vote margin (less than 2 points) and a larger electoral college majority, voters expressed a preference for Donald Trump over Kamala Harris to serve as commander in chief. Why they did so should be a subject of serious study in the coming months and years. Surveyors seeking to gauge the election’s meaning should particularly assess what precisely voters knew about the record and plans of each major presidential candidate.

In the meantime, we are left with the well-worn truism that elections have consequences. We can expect those consequences to be significant for climate policy, for public health, for women’s reproductive health, for immigrants living in the United States, for the people of Ukraine, for the character of the federal bench and for economic policy ranging from who bears what tax burden to the breadth of the safety net. We know Northeastern Law graduates will continue to influence policy in these and other areas. Yet whichever side one takes on a given issue, we can expect that, for the foreseeable future, the election winners will have a leg up in calling the shots.

At our law school, no election’s consequences can shake us from the bedrock principles underlying our mission. We will train students to be flexible about policies but unyielding in defense of the Constitution and the rule of law. We will embrace the wonder of diversity without being intimidated by political mockery that labels caring for others as somehow untoward or “woke.” We will celebrate lawyers who stand up for the vulnerable and demand mutual sacrifice from those who can afford to share. We will venerate the truth, wherever it may lead, and teach our students to be effective advocates who shine light on threats to democracy. Patriots of either party, for example, should be outraged by the bomb threats at urban polling places on Election Day. Above all, we will train lawyers with keen minds and open hearts ready to battle injustice wherever they find it while also embracing a willingness to see complex issues from multiple points of view.

All these lessons, however, will come to naught without the one virtue we can endeavor to embody yet may be unable to impart. More than anything else, to keep striving for a better, fairer America, our students will need courage. May we all find the courage to work for a brighter future together.