View Full Version : Someone wrote ‘Trump 2016′ on Emory’s campus in chalk...
Ultralight
3-24-16, 7:07am
Alan; LDAHL; Williamsmith; Iris Lillies -- you all are gonna love this!
Someone wrote ‘Trump 2016′ on Emory’s campus in chalk. Some students said they no longer feel safe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/24/someone-wrote-trump-2016-on-emorys-campus-in-chalk-some-students-said-they-no-longer-feel-safe/
I hate graffiti, but remain amused by the result.
Williamsmith
3-24-16, 8:05am
http://youtu.be/3umaLe37-LE
I'm an optimist. I don't believe the current crop of college students are so craven and mentally fragile that the word "Trump" chalked on a sidewalk can leave them terror-stricken. If it can, this country faces far larger problems than any damage Mr. Trump is capable of causing.
Rather, I think what we see here are pro forma expressions of a prevailing political orthodoxy. Claiming to feel "unsafe" under these circumstances is more a ritualistic response to a contrary opinion than a genuine emotion. Sort of the PC equivalent of saying "Have a nice day" to someone you could not care less about.
I'm an optimist. I don't believe the current crop of college students are so craven and mentally fragile that the word "Trump" chalked on a sidewalk can leave them terror-stricken. If it can, this country faces far larger problems than any damage Mr. Trump is capable of causing.
Rather, I think what we see here are pro forma expressions of a prevailing political orthodoxy. Claiming to feel "unsafe" under these circumstances is more a ritualistic response to a contrary opinion than a genuine emotion. Sort of the PC equivalent of saying "Have a nice day" to someone you could not care less about.
I may need to admit I was wrong about this.
A friend emailed me another article on this incident that indicated some of the panic at Emory was real. It may be that there are times when reality exceeds parody. I was astonished to see how seriously the university administration was taking this. Someone is paying something like $60K per year to send these kids to Emory, and this is the result?
Chalk one up for the Donald, I guess. He must be loving it.
Ultralight
3-24-16, 4:10pm
I may need to admit I was wrong about this.
A friend emailed me another article on this incident that indicated some of the panic at Emory was real. It may be that there are times when reality exceeds parody. I was astonished to see how seriously the university administration was taking this. Someone is paying something like $60K per year to send these kids to Emory, and this is the result?
Chalk one up for the Donald, I guess. He must be loving it.
This is something that ticks me off about my fellow liberals.
I mean, come on! If you don't like an idea -- then have the dang moxie to challenge it!
And furthermore... if we ever want our socialist paradise to be real, then it is going to take some toughness and discipline. I look at liberals, like the ones at Emory, and think: You ain't got the stuff!
And furthermore... if we ever want our socialist paradise to be real, then it is going to take some toughness and discipline.
And if history is any indication, a willingness to roll up your sleeves and kill tens of millions of people.
I look at liberals, like the ones at Emory, and think: You ain't got the stuff!
They can still be dangerous in crowds, but that's why John Moses Browning invented so many of those wonderful toys.
ApatheticNoMore
3-24-16, 4:27pm
I don't assume I can understand life from the position of some minority I'm not. But also young 20 something's are just finding their way. A 30 something opinion on the same matter would be more likely to be backed by more experience and maturity.
This is something that ticks me off about my fellow liberals.
I mean, come on! If you don't like an idea -- then have the dang moxie to challenge it!
And furthermore... if we ever want our socialist paradise to be real, then it is going to take some toughness and discipline. I look at liberals, like the ones at Emory, and think: You ain't got the stuff!
Personally, I know several liberals who aren't crippled by a fear of contradiction, so I don't know how worried you need to be on that account.
I don't know that it's a Liberal thing, or just poor child-rearing on the part of people who send their kids to expensive private schools. But you're right: there seems little evidence of that old Stalinist spirit here. They would certainly seem to make poor material for a revolution. Whining is not a strategy.
My advice to higher education is to hire more conservative professors (and not just in the sciences) so these children can see that it's possible to hear a differing opinion without suffering permanent damage. Perhaps recruiting some vertebrate administrators who react to drivel appropriately would also help.
iris lilies
3-25-16, 12:01am
I may need to admit I was wrong about this.
A friend emailed me another article on this incident that indicated some of the panic at Emory was real. It may be that there are times when reality exceeds parody. I was astonished to see how seriously the university administration was taking this. Someone is paying something like $60K per year to send these kids to Emory, and this is the result?
Chalk one up for the Donald, I guess. He must be loving it.
Uhhhhhhh, the administration at Emory is taking it seriously only because they saw what happened to their colleage at rhe University of MO when he didn't appear to take seriously the random acts of racism that took place on campus. Similar stuff in Missouri: graffiti, shouted epitaphs, etc.
It cost him his job.
These Emory guys like their jobs.
Uhhhhhhh, the administration at Emory is taking it seriously only because they saw what happened to their colleage at rhe University of MO when he didn't appear to take seriously the random acts of racism that took place on campus. Similar stuff in Missouri: graffiti, shouted epitaphs, etc.
It cost him his job.
These Emory guys like their jobs.
What can they really do beyond joining in the general hand-wringing and searching security footage to identify the "vandals" who so cruelly transcribed bumper stickers on the sidewalks?
The people at Mizzou sacrificed a few high-profile scapegoats and committed some money to "social justice" programs. They would even have held on to Prof. Click if her inadvertent self-parody performance art piece hadn't gone viral. But what did it get them? Freshman enrollment is down 25%. Surely that will have an even more severe impact on their career prospects.
Today's college students are indeed a bunch of whiny babies. The appalling spectacle of political correctness on campuses today is one of the few areas in which I find myself in agreement with the political right (possibly because it's one of the few areas in which they are right.)
When I was teaching in the 80s and early 90s, students weren't like that at all. They were rather docile, sometimes frustratingly so. I used to say provocative things just to try to get a rise out of them--things that would probably get me fired today. Of course, I was teaching at a large state university, not an "elite" college, so the kids were probably more grounded in reality.
I think a lot of what's going on today on campuses, particularly PC and the current rape hysteria, is the result of displaced anxiety. I don't envy today's young people, except for their youth. They know they're about the step into a very messed up world of diminished opportunities, with a pile of debt, and they feel out of control. Hence they try to control things they can, no matter how ridiculous.
Williamsmith
3-25-16, 10:42am
I would love to be 18 all over again. Problem is I would have to learn everything the hard way again.
Today's college students are indeed a bunch of whiny babies. The appalling spectacle of political correctness on campuses today is one of the few areas in which I find myself in agreement with the political right (possibly because it's one of the few areas in which they are right.)
My daughter's University frequently makes the national news for various activist goings-on. (For instance, the recent "let's scrub the campus clean of any mention of Woodrow Wilson" movement.) She reports to me that the coverage makes it seem like a broader-based movement than it is on-the-ground, and that the bulk of the students attending the $60k/year institution are busy either studying or partying. But that doesn't make good click-bait.
My daughter's University frequently makes the national news for various activist goings-on. (For instance, the recent "let's scrub the campus clean of any mention of Woodrow Wilson" movement.) She reports to me that the coverage makes it seem like a broader-based movement than it is on-the-ground, and that the bulk of the students attending the $60k/year institution are busy either studying or partying. But that doesn't make good click-bait.
I'm sure this is true--even during the 1960s the majority of college students weren't out demonstrating or occupying buildings (with the exception of a few extremely active campuses). But there's no doubt that the tone has changed and far too many college kids today don't seem to understand that the whole point of free speech is the freedom to say things that make some people's blood boil.
I'm sure this is true--even during the 1960s the majority of college students weren't out demonstrating or occupying buildings (with the exception of a few extremely active campuses). But there's no doubt that the tone has changed and far too many college kids today don't seem to understand that the whole point of free speech is the freedom to say things that make some people's blood boil.
I was no fool--I did my demonstrating after class. I was paying for my education, after all.
I was no fool--I did my demonstrating after class. I was paying for my education, after all.
I marched for my beliefs every week with AFROTC Detachment 190 in the University of Illinois Armory. The time and place being what they were, we got the occasional conforming nonconformist hecklers. There were people trying to get ROTC thrown of campus, but they weren't of the scary-ideas-make-me-wet-the-bed variety.
My favorite headline on this: "Chalk and Awe".
gimmethesimplelife
4-9-16, 11:15am
I can say that as a pushing 50 adult were I to run across Trump written in chalk in front of an institution or business well past it's opening hour I would feel immediate distrust and would seriously question said business or institution for some time. Trump has made numerous scary comments and I can't justify subsidizing a business or institution that supports him. To do so, for me anyway, would be a violation of basic human rights and basic human dignity. So I can understand how younger people could get all riled up about seeing Trump's name in chalk at Emory. Rob
I can say that as a pushing 50 adult were I to run across Trump written in chalk in front of an institution or business well past it's opening hour I would feel immediate distrust and would seriously question said business or institution for some time. Trump has made numerous scary comments and I can't justify subsidizing a business or institution that supports him. To do so, for me anyway, would be a violation of basic human rights and basic human dignity. So I can understand how younger people could get all riled up about seeing Trump's name in chalk at Emory. Rob
So when persons unknown chalk the name of a candidate you find scary on the pavement near a business, you feel that patronizing that business would be a violation of basic human rights? Is sidewalk censorship a duty of proximate merchants?
My favorite headline on this: "Chalk and Awe".
Now the terrorist can stop worrying about guns and bombs, they can just get some chalk from the children.
I can say that as a pushing 50 adult were I to run across Trump written in chalk in front of an institution or business well past it's opening hour I would feel immediate distrust and would seriously question said business or institution for some time. Trump has made numerous scary comments and I can't justify subsidizing a business or institution that supports him. To do so, for me anyway, would be a violation of basic human rights and basic human dignity. So I can understand how younger people could get all riled up about seeing Trump's name in chalk at Emory. Rob
wow.
I can say that as a pushing 50 adult were I to run across Trump written in chalk in front of an institution or business well past it's opening hour I would feel immediate distrust and would seriously question said business or institution for some time. Trump has made numerous scary comments and I can't justify subsidizing a business or institution that supports him. To do so, for me anyway, would be a violation of basic human rights and basic human dignity. So I can understand how younger people could get all riled up about seeing Trump's name in chalk at Emory. Rob
Personally my thought would be to just come with a bucket of water to take care of it. Or maybe get a piece of red chalk and turn it into something positive by drawing a circle with a slash through it over the original. If the institution's owner then came out to express displeasure I might choose to not patronize them. If they came out and expressed gratitude, saying something like "yeah, I saw that when I got here and meant to get rid of it but 10 other things came up to be dealt with and I just didn't get around to it..." then maybe I'd have a new friend.
I am curious to know when it is OK to deface or remove or censor someone else's signs (speech) that are expressing their political opinion.
Miss Cellane
4-9-16, 7:58pm
I can say that as a pushing 50 adult were I to run across Trump written in chalk in front of an institution or business well past it's opening hour I would feel immediate distrust and would seriously question said business or institution for some time. Trump has made numerous scary comments and I can't justify subsidizing a business or institution that supports him. To do so, for me anyway, would be a violation of basic human rights and basic human dignity. So I can understand how younger people could get all riled up about seeing Trump's name in chalk at Emory. Rob
My guess would be that a business that supports Trump would have some sort of printed sign or campaign poster up, not a chalk scrawl. The chalk could be anyone who felt that space was a good space to write Trump's name.
I am curious to know when it is OK to deface or remove or censor someone else's signs (speech) that are expressing their political opinion.
When it's written in chalk. That's kind of the point of a college having a chalking policy, which Emory apparently does. You can write something, but don't be surprised if it's gone the next day.
Furthermore, Emory is a private school and can set whatever rules it likes about where students can write slogans.
That said, as a free speech near-absolutist, I believe the appropriate response by the Emory students in this case wasn't to whine to the administration that someone had written "Trump" on campus sidewalks. The appropriate response would have been to add "is an asshole" beneath it (also in chalk). You fight speech with more speech, not prior restraint.
gimmethesimplelife
4-9-16, 9:29pm
When it's written in chalk. That's kind of the point of a college having a chalking policy, which Emory apparently does. You can write something, but don't be surprised if it's gone the next day.
Furthermore, Emory is a private school and can set whatever rules it likes about where students can write slogans.
That said, as a free speech near-absolutist, I believe the appropriate response by the Emory students in this case wasn't to whine to the administration that someone had written "Trump" on campus sidewalks. The appropriate response would have been to add "is an asshole" beneath it (also in chalk). You fight speech with more speech, not prior restraint.I like your take on this. Thank You for posting this........I can see your point about fighting speech with more speech. Rob
When it's written in chalk. That's kind of the point of a college having a chalking policy, which Emory apparently does.
Furthermore, Emory is a private school and can set whatever rules it likes about where students can write slogans. .
My musing was upon the preceding posts to mine, which were concerning a chalk message on a sidewalk in front of a business or institution. Not Emory's chalking policy or private property rights.
Where I live, a sidewalk is likely to be private property, and removing or vandalizing such a message, no matter how politically distasteful, seems to cross the line of reasonable behaviour. The last several election cycles here, in the most progressive county in the state perhaps, we've had large numbers of signs and other messages stolen or vandalized, usually the signs belonging to the more conservative candidates/causes.
This cycle I'm setting out several groups of signs in tempting places, with video monitoring, and hope to YouTube the people trying to supress the political speech of their neighbors.
iris lilies
4-10-16, 12:01am
I am curious to know when it is OK to deface or remove or censor someone else's signs (speech) that are expressing their political opinion.
Depends on where the signs are. I've removed political signs from public property, not often, but Ive done it. Seldom are political signs in my neighborhood ones that support anyone or any cause I agree with. In these situations I am annoyed that the "other" side has commandered "my" property (i.e. Public property) to hold their signs, so I have just as much right to take them down as those had to put them up.
I assumed jp's post above to refer to chalked words on a public sidewalk.
iris lilies
4-10-16, 12:12am
Bae, i hope you catch some who are sromping on free speech and show us the videos.
Depends on where the signs are. I've removed political signs from public property, not often, but Ive done it. Seldom are political signs in my neighborhood ones that support anyone or any cause I agree with. In these situations I am annoyed that the "other" side has commandered "my" property (i.e. Public property) to hold their signs, so I have just as much right to take them down as those had to put them up.
I assumed jp's post above to refer to chalked words on a public sidewalk.
Yes, that was my assumption of where the chalked words were.
This cycle I'm setting out several groups of signs in tempting places, with video monitoring, and hope to YouTube the people trying to supress the political speech of their neighbors.
Knowing your intelligence level I assume that the tempting signs are in places where anyone has the right to express their opinion?
And looking at the bigger issue, I guess my question (and I honestly have never looked into this and have no idea what the answer is) is whether someone has the right to expect durability of their freely expressed opinion. ie, if someone expresses their opinion in a public space using chalk and then someone else expresses their opposing opinion using more chalk to deface the first expression, does the first person have any right to go after the second person?
Knowing your intelligence level I assume that the tempting signs are in places where anyone has the right to express their opinion?
Well, the signs will be on private property where the property owner has the rights to express their opinion freely, but others who intrude and vandalize are guilty of multiple criminal offenses...
I assumed jp's post above to refer to chalked words on a public sidewalk.
See, hereabouts most of the sidewalks are private property, installed by and maintained by the good graces of the property owner in voluntary cooperation with neighboring property owners. We only have one small incorporated village in the county with actual public sidewalks.
I had to point this out a few years ago when some political group set up their booth on my land alongside the Main Street of our village. If they;d asked first, I might had said yes. As it was, I had to call the Sheriff to roust them, not wanting to have to detain them myself...
Williamsmith
4-10-16, 5:56am
My musing was upon the preceding posts to mine, which were concerning a chalk message on a sidewalk in front of a business or institution. Not Emory's chalking policy or private property rights.
Where I live, a sidewalk is likely to be private property, and removing or vandalizing such a message, no matter how politically distasteful, seems to cross the line of reasonable behaviour. The last several election cycles here, in the most progressive county in the state perhaps, we've had large numbers of signs and other messages stolen or vandalized, usually the signs belonging to the more conservative candidates/causes.
This cycle I'm setting out several groups of signs in tempting places, with video monitoring, and hope to YouTube the people trying to supress the political speech of their neighbors.
Bae, more than one political campaign season has been marred by the heinous crime of signage theft and vandalism. I worked the midnight shift many years by choice. It allowed me a steady shift and I was able to attend important sporting events, school functions and participate in character building leadership,programs with my children.
Something happened one night. There were two prominent politicians mounting particularly vicious campaigns publicly smearing each other with baseless allegations. It was an embarrassment for the community. Both had an unbelievable amount of signage posted along the highways and byways of the county. Somebody collected more than a few samples of each and then travelled to each politicians residence and placed the signage of their opponent in front of their houses. In the morning, each one saw that they were advertising for the other.
I made the mistake of telling my coworkers what I was going to do in retirement. I told them I wanted to open up a fruit and vegetable stand. Sure enough, the day after my retirement I went out to get the paper and there was a big sign in my front yard, "Smith's Fruits and Vegetables".
We haven't discussed what is perhaps the most important issue regarding political signage, the ubiquitous presence of those damned wire signs blowing around the streets for weeks after any election.
Fining the campaign of the culprit $1,000 for any sign the cops pick up on public property ought to put a damper on the problem, not to mention being a nice little source of municipal revenue. :idea:
Williamsmith
4-10-16, 8:07am
Just enact legislation that the winner picks up all the signage.
Just enact legislation that the winner picks up all the signage.
That's not the American way. Legislators (who presumably were the winners) would be much more likely to pass a law requiring the losers to pick it all up.
Williamsmith
4-10-16, 10:16am
In my house, whoever wins the game, picks it up and puts it away. A little lesson in humility and sympathy.
In my house, whoever wins the game, picks it up and puts it away. A little lesson in humility and sympathy.
That kind of thinking is out of place in the age of Trump. The winner has earned his place of privilege, and the rest of you are loooooosers!
Our county allows political signs along the public roadside, with some regulation:
C. Political signs shall be permitted outright; provided, that they shall not be erected more than 45 days prior to an election and shall be removed by the candidate or landowner no more than 72 hours following an election terminating candidacy. Political signs shall not exceed six square feet in area.
The county heavily regulates commercial signage on private property, but declines to regulate political signs.
Williamsmith
4-10-16, 7:54pm
Our county allows political signs along the public roadside, with some regulation:
C. Political signs shall be permitted outright; provided, that they shall not be erected more than 45 days prior to an election and shall be removed by the candidate or landowner no more than 72 hours following an election terminating candidacy. Political signs shall not exceed six square feet in area.
The county heavily regulates commercial signage on private property, but declines to regulate political signs.
Bakers get free bread.
Our county allows political signs along the public roadside, with some regulation:
C. Political signs shall be permitted outright; provided, that they shall not be erected more than 45 days prior to an election and shall be removed by the candidate or landowner no more than 72 hours following an election terminating candidacy. Political signs shall not exceed six square feet in area.
The county heavily regulates commercial signage on private property, but declines to regulate political signs.
Our county is not so heavy handed, although we do remove signs (and everything else) from highway right of ways. That sometimes leads to accusations of censorship. We also get the occasional highly emotional response when we remove those shrines people sometimes build at the site of traffic fatalities.
ToomuchStuff
4-12-16, 2:02pm
I am curious to know when it is OK to deface or remove or censor someone else's signs (speech) that are expressing their political opinion.
Private property, of course.
Safety aspect, right of way, blocking traffic views, etc.
But there is also both the free speech that opposes view, artistic speech view, and property abandonment view.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.