Predictably, more controversy erupted around Donald Trump. For once, though, he didn’t do anything to spark an outcry. Instead, what’s at issue is the right of Trump supporters to spread pro-Trump messages at Emory University in Georgia. This strikes at the core of what I find so disturbing about the continual controversy around Trump. Both sides are often totally uninterested in listening to each other, and rather engage in a zero-sum game where the goal is to shut down and de-legitimize opposing messages. This can take the form of Trump supporters attacking protesters, but it can also take the form of protesters using their numbers to shut down Trump rallies. Trump’s message is atrocious, but both responses to differing opinions are wrong and dangerous to a free and inclusive society.
The Emory controversy is about what messages are appropriate in the University’s public spaces. Across campus, someone wrote on sidewalks and stairs, in chalk: “Trump 2016” “Trump” and “Build the Wall”. About 50 students visited the University President to protest that they felt unsafe and threatened by these messages. Other groups staged protests and wrote letters condemning the chalk messages.
A University spokesperson responded that the messages did not meet university policy, not because of their content, but because: “chalkings by students are allowed as a form of expression on the Emory campus but must be limited to certain areas and must not deface campus property – these chalkings did not follow guidelines – that’s the issue regarding violation of policy, not the content.” The President’s statement, however, suggested the content was problematic as he said, “the students with whom I spoke heard a message, not about political process or candidate choice, but instead about values regarding diversity and respect that clash with Emory’s own.” [All quotes from linked Washington Post article.]
The rise of ‘Trumpism’ is terrifying and fascinating, but also scary is the response from many on the left – not just to challenge Trump’s beliefs, but to try and shut down the message entirely. Trump is challenging many things I thought were at least publicly agreed upon in a liberal democracy such as the United States. I’m glad people are pushing back, and I think many people (I hope most) agree that Donald Trump’s positions on Hispanics, Muslims and women are hateful and disgusting. But the scary part is that some Trump supporters and some anti-Trump protesters are essentially playing similar games, albeit with different goals. The message seems to be: my right to free speech trumps yours, so shut up. We are right, you are wrong, and you don’t have a right to speak. Trump plays this card directly and viciously, by belittling protesters, by throwing them out of his events and by encouraging the crowd to rough them up. Scary stuff.
The students at Emory who went to their University President aren’t nearly as thuggish as Mr. Trump, but some of their message is similar. A sample of comments from the schools Latino Student Organization say that the chalkings have, “attacked minorities and marginalized communities at Emory” and that these chalk messages are “not political expression, this is hate speech.” According to this group the messages “far exceeded what can reasonably be considered simply an expression of political support.”
Build that Wall is certainly not a nice message, but is it hate speech? Build that wall is sadly one of Trump’s few clear policies. “Trump 2016!” and “Trump” are clearly political – are all Trump supporters automatically racists? Is any mention of Trump verboten? Has he now become Voldemort – he who shall not be named?
This is a tough issue, as respect and tolerance are critical, but they have to go hand in hand with a reasonable view of what can and cannot be said or written in public spaces. Donald Trump says hateful things, but supporting Trump, even supporting or repeating some of his awful views, does not necessarily constitute hate speech. To me the difference between offensive speech and hate speech is that hate speech is directly and purposefully aimed at inciting violence or intimidating. The fact that police have considered charging Trump with inciting a riot suggests to my limited legal knowledge the candidate himself is walking a fine line between offensive (but legitimate, free expression of his views) and hate speech. A small number of Trump’s supporters jump straight over that line with their Klan and Nazi references, which clearly are meant to intimidate people, as both groups inflicted and encouraged violence against minorities.
Being able to support a political candidate or party, publicly, without fear of violence or aggression, is a cornerstone of democracy. Limiting people’s free speech and what they can and can’t say in the public realm is a very slippery slope. Even when people say offensive, hurtful things, they often have a right to say them. That doesn’t mean we can’t disagree harshly, but up to the point of hate speech we must let them speak. Uncovering and confronting intolerance is a stronger weapon than trying to stifle and bury angry, intolerant opinions. The public realm is a place for diverse views, even if those views are against diversity.
