Students at Emory University in Georgia recently expressed outrage over a supposedly horrific event that occurred on their campus. Students have gathered and protested, claiming that they are “in pain” and “afraid.” What could have provided the catalyst for this traumatic turn of events, you ask? Why, someone had the audacity to write “Trump 2016” on some of the sidewalk areas at the University. Among other things, students at Emory are concerned that the Trump sidewalk chalk would create an “unsafe” environment for students on campus. This reaction has, unfortunately, become the norm on colleges campuses as of late. It seems as if every event that unfolds, every personal preference or political view that someone has, is internalized and made into an emotional issue by these college students. Personally, I think Trump is a self-centered, ego-maniacal blowhard who is perhaps the most unqualified presidential candidate in American history.
However, I recognize the fact that Trump has his supporters and they have every right to speak their minds. We are a nation where the right to free expression is enshrined in our constitution. This means the right to free expression to everyone, not just those with whom you agree with. There is a difference between saying “I disagree with you and this is why” and “I disagree with you and your words are violent and intimidating and thus, you shouldn’t be allowed to express that opinion.” The former position recognizes the fact that not everyone shares identical opinions and seeks further debate and discussion. The latter point of view seeks to inhibit another person from speaking their opinion because words, in their mind, make people feel threatened.
I wonder if these students would have had a similar sort of reaction if someone wrote Bernie 2016 on the sidewalks around campus? Something tells me they wouldn’t. If these students are objecting to specific political messages on campus where would the line be drawn, exactly? What if, for example, a Christian pro-life group at Emory objected to an abortion rights activist speaking on campus? Would these students, the same group protesting the Trump sidewalk chalk, support the views of pro-life students who may feel “unsafe” or “in pain” regarding pro-choice activism on campus?
Again, I have a strong feeling that these students would fail to do this. So, I think the next question must be; what kind of campus environment are these “activists” attempting to create? If these students are against standing up for all forms of speech equally, and I have a feeling this is the case, then they must desire to construct an environment where only certain forms of speech are tolerable.
This is, in a very real sense, is similar to fascism. Instead of engaging with Trump supporters and debating issues surrounding things like immigration or race relations, students instead chose to silence their opposition by claiming that they feel threatened. Do these students plan on continuing this behavior after graduation? If they’re in a job interview and feel “unsafe” should they be allowed to leave? If anything, our culture has progressed due to the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints, and advocating for censorship is misguided at best and gravely dangerous at worst.
