This has been an interesting week for Emory University. A campus-wide email sent out by University President James Wagner addressed a vigorous campus debate, in which the principles of free speech and the rights of marginalized students to feel safe on campus have butted heads repeatedly. This debate has not been limited to Emory’s campus. Simply searching “Emory Trump chalk” on Google will yield various news sources of varying credibility weighing in on the discussion.
I would like to start this discussion by making two statements. First of all, I am unequivocally opposed to a Donald Trump presidency, as I believe there are few things that could possibly be more detrimental to American society than electing such an intolerant demagogue into our nation’s highest office. Second of all, one of those few things I consider to be more dangerous than a Trump presidency is the institutional stifling of free speech.
I do not intend to follow the lead of the many online publications demeaning the protestors themselves. I will not waste my time — or your time — by making meaningless, insulting claims that people are babies or whiners or that these protesters are oversensitive. I will advocate for their right to protest the Trump chalkings as adamantly as I believe in the chalker’s right to political expression. The simple fact that I, or anyone else, disagree with the protestors does not detract from their right to demonstrate.
This freedom, however, is a two-way street. The very same principles and rights that allow the protesters to storm into the Administration Building and demand to meet with the president of our University guarantee the Trump chalker his or her right to advocate for the political candidate of his or her choosing. What I take issue with, then, is not the protest itself, but the fact that the emotional state or political opinions of a one group of protesters on campus have been institutionally verified as superior to the political beliefs or emotions of another student. This is not inclusivity in any sense of the word. Instead, a failed attempt by University officials to placate a small group of protesters has devolved into a torrent of media derision aimed at Emory University.
The main issue at hand in these discussions is how the Trump chalkings have been interpreted as opposed to the physical messages themselves. On one side, students interpret the graffiti as political speech that ought to be protected regardless of the boorish and offensive nature of the candidate it endorses. On the other side, marginalized groups on campus interpret the pro-Trump graffiti as a direct threat against them. These individuals, as far as I can tell, believe the graffiti is representative of larger problems in American society — problems they consider to be evident in Trump’s recent rise to frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. I count myself among the former crowd and will seek to explain why I feel this way through addressing some of the concerns expressed by the latter group.
First and foremost, many people in the second camp feel that the chalkings do not constitute political expression. They believe that the goal of these messages was not to advocate for a candidate but to create fear and anger in the student body. This is an argument I reject. Nobody can possibly know the motivations of the chalker(s), save for the chalker(s) themselves. To dismiss political opinion based on one’s interpretation of it as offensive or inflammatory, regardless of how justified those interpretations may be, is to make an assumption that is unverifiable.
Further, this argument is hypocritical when viewed alongside the statements made by many who support the protesters. As the media firestorm has rained down upon Emory University over the past few days, many of those who supported the protesters have expressed that they feel the coverage is incomplete — people were not truly protesting in fear of chalk; they were motivated by deep-seated concerns born of a lifetime of experience. To argue that the media coverage suffers as a result of not understanding the protesters while at the same time making assumptions about the motives of the chalker in order to justify silencing them is hypocritical. Just as the media presumably does not know or understand the motivations of the protestors, neither do the protesters know or understand the motivations of the chalker. If this lack of understanding has caused the media’s reactions to be simplistic, over-exaggerated and insulting, then it has had the same effect on the angry and emotional reactions of those who have reacted most strongly against the chalkings.
Another popular argument is that the chalkings were done under the cover of night and thus are not a political demonstration but rather a targeted and covert attack on the marginalized groups of this campus. Why, people ask, would someone write these messages in such a way, intentionally concealing themselves, if all they sought to do was express their political opinions? This, I believe, is an argument that has already been defeated by those who constructed it in the first place. Look no further than the words of those who most strongly align themselves with the protestors and find statements full of hatred, vitriol and disgust for the person who wrote the pro-Trump messages. Though these individuals may believe their indignation to be righteous, it is fundamentally still indignation. I would argue that it is quite possible that those individuals wrote these messages at night because they feared for their safety, and these emotionally driven and insult-heavy reactions have convinced me that the author(s) would have been correct in making that assumption.
Finally, there is the argument that to support Trump is not political speech but rather a moral wrong, simply due to the fact that one is aligning themselves with a candidate widely believed to be racist, sexist, xenophobic or some negative “-ist” of one’s choosing. A pro-Trump opinion, by this logic, is not a political one, but a racist one. This is the argument that seems to be the most widely believed by those who think the University’s reaction was justified. It’s also the belief I consider to be the most dangerous.
Like it or not, supporting Donald Trump is a political opinion. He is a political figure and, though it pains me to say it, quite a successful one as of late. If people wish to support him, we cannot condemn them for doing so. Disagree with them, argue against them incessantly on every public forum to which you have access and, most importantly of all, fight them in the voting booths come the national election. But do not seek to silence them. Your right to be offended, regardless of how justified you may feel in having that reaction is, does not, will not and should not detract from the rights of the individual who offended you. We cannot know the chalker(s) motivations, and we cannot dismiss their right to political speech based on emotional arguments made by those whom the speech offends.
The battle against Trump this November, should he win the nomination, will be one of the most important political events in this country’s history. It is a battle in which those of us at Emory who oppose his rhetoric must fight constantly. It will not, however, be won by silencing his protesters. Other politicians such as Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and even Marco Rubio have welcomed those who disagree with them at their rallies. They let them stay. They are confident not in their ability to suppress those whose views clash with their own but in their ability to debate them and defeat them in the public forum. The only candidate who feels insecure enough in their own beliefs to encourage the silencing of protesters is Trump.
Trump does this because he knows his ideas hold no argumentative weight. They are emotional, based on building anger and fear. He cloaks himself in these emotions to disguise his glaring inadequacies. The most powerful weapons against this man will be the rights to political speech and open dialogue that he seeks to eliminate at his own rallies. I urge those who truly oppose him not to push for those rights to be called into question here; rather, call on the university to make it clear that Emory is a safe haven for students to express political opinions regardless of affiliation.
Tyler Zelinger is a College junior from Commack, New York.
Tyler Zelinger, after the mass killings in Brussels and Paris and San Bernardino and elsewhere by Muslim extremists who arrived as refugees, why is Trump intolerant for wanting to temporarily stop their immigration until we can vet them better? Who on earth are you to decide that the loss and maimed bodies of thousands and thousands of innocent lives are outweighed by what Rachel Maddow tells you on T.V.?
Donald Trump is crushing political correctness, exposing a dishonest mainstream media and exposing the agenda-driven propaganda found in the establishment of both political parties.
He predicted Brussels in January of this year, as campus liberals laughed at him at the time for predicting it.
So why defeat him?
Have you thought any of this through?
You’re hilarious
I like to mix my wisdom with humor on occasion… thanks and God bless you.
We may not have the same viewpoints, but as a Southerner, dammit if I can’t respect you. I don’t hear it much anymore – God Bless you too.
I appreciate that, TRUUU. Cheers!
Lol
LOL.
First, let’s put aside the ridiculous proposition that a billion Muslims are implicitly responsible for the actions of .00001% of radical terrorist Muslim groups, who by chance, are killing more Muslims than any other groups. We’ll even put aside that ISIS, Boko Haram, and other groups are being fought mostly by other Muslims. This is a huge point to put aside but let’s just put that looming question aside for now.
How would the “temporary” Muslim immigration ban even be implemented? Have everyone eat pork and drink alcohol in immigration services? Maybe just a straight question about whether the migrant is Muslim or now, god know terrorists can’t lie and forge documents.
The proposition is intolerant because it generalizes the actions of a few, literally a few, to a billion people and marginalizes American Muslims. Would they be allowed back into the country if they left for vacation? How will they be identifies as Muslim? Not every Muslim woman has a hijab. Not every Muslim who considers themselves Muslim practices all the doctrines of their faith.
The proposition is moronic nonsense for its ability to be completely ineffective.
+++
You posted twice now about Maddow…presuming the author is a college student, it’s highly unlikely that he watches Maddow or any mainstream media network because, gasp, their viewership tends to skew up…to people in their 60s…or the equally idiotic implication that watching Maddow is somehow indicative of one’s inability for independent thought.
Very well said.
Ditto
Tyler, you won’t ridicule these protesters, but ridiculing and public shaming is exactly what they need. These students, who are offended by their own shadows, need to be given a cold water to the face wake up. They are the reason Donald Trump is where he is today. The constant complaining and protest over every perceived slight has reached critical mass. People are tired of it. I will not vote for Trump, or Cruz, but I’d sort of like to see how these children would react if he was elected President. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality. I’m leaning toward Hillary. Maybe Kasich if he somehow makes it. Quite frankly, I think Bernie is the left’s version of Trump. His ultra liberal ideas are divisive and dangerous. But I certainly don’t have an all out poopy pants meltdown when I see one of his campaign posters.
Trump being attacked for threatening the cancer of political correctness, the scourge of political establishment corruption in both parties and the dishonesty of the mainstream media.
Needless to say, those Trump is attacking are getting the young — who know no better — to attack him at the university level.
Yeah, there’s no videos that exist where Trump followers violently attack protesters. NOPE. None at all, just a media fabrication.
You’re a moron.
Trump has held 100s of rallies attended by 1000s of supporters in each rally. If you stereotype Trump’s campaign because of the actions of a handful of supporters (think there have been 2 violent incidents so far) will you do the same for say Muslims or African-Americans or Whites or Liberals or Eskimos based on the actions of a few members of these groups?
The actions of a few should never be generalized to the whole.
Kasich, Rubio, Cruz, every presidential candidate has held 100s of rallies, why does this only happen at Trumps?
Because Trump supporters, for all of the hype that people like you would suggest, don’t spend their time at the rallies of Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz trying to stop them from being heard.
I don’t like Trump.
I’m continually amazed at the left’s belief that if they don’t like a candidate, they should be able to stop others from hearing them.
There’s protesters at every presidential rally, they only violent at Trumps.
TRUMP 2016
“I will not waste my time — or your time — by making meaningless, insulting claims that people are babies or whiners or that these protesters are oversensitive.”
Yeah, that’s fair. It’s so well known that the protesters are whining, oversensitive babies that there’s really no point in spending yet more time banging on about it.
Why is it on Emory Wheel that when discussing the chalking incident even the most reasonable authors throw in a disclaimer that they in no way support Donald Trump? Why is is necessary to point that out? What you should be doing instead of apologizing for not being a full-on leftist is to call for the resignation of the university’s president. All that he needed to do in response to those students’ complaints was to tell them to buy some chalk of their own and write opposing messages. But instead he opted to give everyone from everyone from Bill Maher to Alex Jones license to mock the university. Get rid of him, he clearly is in over his head.
If you actually knew anything about Emory, you would know Wagner already is on his way out (he announced his resignation months ago).
The most ridiculous aspect of this protest is the claim that colleges are meant to be a safe space where emotionally fragile millennials can hide away for 4 years without being exposed to any dissenting opinion or thought. I think to the contrary universities are meant to prepare and mold you as thoughtful, intellectual citizens who can face and address the challenges facing our world after graduation. This requires you to be able to listen, engage and debate people who may propose ideas that you strongly disagree with.
In real world you cannot run away from all the things that offend you nor can you control your environment to eliminate all things that you disagree with. So what are the protesters going to do this summer when they return home and see countless Trump signs and Trump supporters all over America? Are they going to demand that the city/state governments remove all signs and silence all trump supporters so these precious little snow flakes are not triggered?
Finally I find the conduct of the Emory President even more inexcusable. At least these protesters can hide behind their youth and immaturity but for the leader of a major university to coddle and support this misguided protest and threaten to punish somebody participating in our democratic election process is disheartening.
“intolerant demagogue”.. We currently have one of those in the White House. I guess it’s what you are intolerant about, right?
I do commend the writer for pointing out that the Trump chalk drawing were performed at night because the writers feared for their safety. I have little doubt that these precious snowflakes would have attacked like harpy’s if they come across the drawers in the act.
The important issue is immigration. Don’t decide your vote on who has better hair (Bernie), or who your teachers like (Hillary). Vote your opinion on the most important issue on which the candidates differ. I go with immigration (Trump).
“Other politicians such as Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and even Marco
Rubio have welcomed those who disagree with them at their rallies. They
let them stay.”
What in the world are you talking about?
No political rally, ever, has let the people who want to heckle the speaker, stay. Which makes sense. Its just not a great way to conduct a dialogue to let a heckler continue to heckle, particularly when the heckler in a political setting is going to just repeat whatever chant or sound byte they’re trying to get into the media.
You had a great argument going, and then ruined it in one fell swoop. Not Trump, nor any candidate, should be expected to “welcome” protesters. None have. Obama has waited out while the secret service removes the people protesting him. So has Rubio. I can’t fathom what kind of reaction protesters would get if they turned up at a Sanders’ rally and were not BLM protesters, but even BLM protesters were booed by Sanders’ fans. Go figure. They were there to hear Sanders speak.
Great op-ed piece in my opinion. Well reasoned and thoughtful.
Good piece, and the fundamental problem was never that anti-Trump protestors were protesting, but that, instead of protesting they demanded that the administration “do something” about someone else’s right to free expression. If the protestors decided to hold an anti-Trump rally the next day with signs calling Trump whatever they felt like calling him the media firestorm that ensued would not have happened. They didn’t do that and they were labelled the way they were labelled by literally ALL media left and right. Hopefully a lesson was learned.
“they were motivated by deep-seated concerns born of a lifetime of experience….”
Ah yes, the deep-seated concerns rooted deep–our life, times and drama of the modern nineteen year old.
I think it was Frankie Ballard who said, “How am I ever gonna get to be old and wise
If I ain’t ever young and crazy?”
Well Tyler, at least Ballard has some faith that the hysterical teenagers we see at Emory will someday may be old and wise. As for me, I’m losing faith in your generation to get your act together.
I will see to it that my boy, now only six years younger than “those Emoroids”, maintains good character and a can-do attitude. Don’t think for a second that socializing with Emory students will be a part of that plan, much less sending him there for ah…. study.
I predict a drop-off in coming enrollments.
You have me agreeing with you until your last paragraph, when you just negated your argument by doing what you said was troubling. You switched arguments and attributed motivations to Trump that you cannot verify. Be careful, it’s a slippery slope to be an observer and an activist.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
He isn’t negating his argument, simply saying whay a crappy politician Trump limits free spech in no way. Why do you think even self-respecting Republicans are trying to get rid of Trump? His policies make no sense and that’s why he constantly has some other irrelevant drama going on to distract from it. It’s pretty simple to vefify, just listen to the economists that said his tax plan isn’t even applicable, or the White House that said his campaign management is unaccepatble, or the political analysts on CNN that say he changes his views every other week.
You did take a College English class, right? He negated the point he was making that you can’t project your feelings and anxieties upon other people, by making the same type of judgment he was admonishing. Please be aware that as an editor, he is held to a higher standard of journalistic reporting, while others that are not can express their opinions in a more laissez faire manner. Check with an English teacher if you think I am wrong.
First off, no I didn’t take college English as I’m still in high school, even though that point is totally irrelevant. Secondly, do you see that little category at the top that says “opinion”? Last time I checked those weren’t meant to be impartial, and you must live under a rock if you think that most news and media are. And he was admonishing telling people they aren’t allowed to express their opinions… sharing his doesn’t mean that his adversaries aren’t allowed to speak up. I’m not sure what college you went to, but I feel like my English teachers would definitely agree with me.
Try talking to your English Teachers. I had the fortunate luck to chat with a former Emory Wheel editor and he agreed with me concerning my observation, which is my opinion. Tyler used a common five paragraph argument which follows a logical argument, not an emotional one. His last paragraph was a logical non-sequitur conclusion, not supported by his previous arguments. So if and when you become better educated and crawl from under your personal rock, bask in the sunshine of the world at large.
His last article brings up a point that most mature readers should be able to acknowledge without it having been previously mentioned or supported- The fact that Donald Trump lacks substance in his policies and that he further lacks a foundation for moral character. If you are unable to see this plainly, then I don’t think I’m the one who needs to be “better educated”. You can always find an individual who will suport your opinion, but our nation as a whole is progressing rapidly, and I’m afraid that your pride may cause you to be left behind.
Before you embarrass yourself more, realize that you are posting to a college publication, not a Facebook page. There are no training wheels here. You are in the real world and you have to be able to keep up or go home. Go talk with your English teacher(s) before speaking for them. I am qualified to teach a college level English class, so I might know what I am talking about.
At least I know how to reply to the right thread lol. Your responses make no sense and you really didn’t address any of my last points because you obviously are in the wrong. I wouldn’t take a class you’d be teaching¯_(ツ)_/¯
Hey kids, just vote republican
In the end, you will be better of
If Trump becomes President, what would these kiddies do?