On the 1st of November students on the Salisbury University’s campus woke up to various statements chalked around campus involving our presidential nominees. Harmless “Trump 2016” and “Vote for Trump” were among the many chalkings sighted. However, the statements that drove students to collectively band together and wash away the chalk were “Hillary for prison”, “Hillary did 9/11” and Trump’s infamous “Build the wall” banter.
The following is an excerpt from the email the university sent to students regarding the situation:
“Our campus is supposed to be a place where we can engage openly in free speech and dialogue on diverging views, and most importantly, do this with respect, civility and honor to everyone, whether you are in agreement or not. Please consider your intent and the campus impact before talking or chalking”.
Students were disappointed in the university’s handling of the situation. Further interpreting the email lead students to believe that the university is faulting the students that removed the messages rather than the students that wrote them in the first place. The question examined here is whether freedom of speech should be protected when it derives from hate speech? Openly blaming a presidential nominee for a national tragedy such as 9/11 is highly insensitive and in no way politically relevant. “Build the wall” has become and continues to be a symbol for intolerance and prejudices whether this outcome was Trump’s intention or not.
Students have expressed their anger with the University’s hesitation in removing the messages. A few weeks prior to this incident members of the Black Student Union and NAACP organized a Black Lives Matter protest in which outlines of bodies representing the lives wrongfully taken by police were drawn on the ground. After the protest, the markings were immediately wiped away by university staff. Why is it that the university was quick to act on the Black Lives Matter chalkings and not the ones relating to insensitive statements regarding the presidential election? It is unclear how long the messages would have been on campus if students hadn’t removed them.
Anonymous social media app Yik-Yak was filled with users expressing their distaste with the removal of the messages calling the act “dumb” and “intolerant”. To make something clear, students’ intentions weren’t to infringe upon other’s beliefs. It is evident that we all have varying opinions about the election. However, It becomes a problem when malicious rhetoric is used to express one’s beliefs.