Anti-Trump Riots

Broken glass lines the windows of shops, and graffiti covers walls, as smoke rises from the remnants of trashcan fires. Rather than a post-apocalyptic film scene, this is the work of protests against President-Elect Donald Trump in Portland, Oregon.

Following a significant level of violence, the police declared the protests a riot. Rioters damaged a car park and threw objects at police who attempted to quell the violence. Reports claim rioters attacked drivers in their cars and shut down the I-5 and I-84 freeways. At least 29 people were arrested.

Though Portland saw the brunt of violent activity, protests in other major cities caused trouble as well. Protesters in Baltimore sat in the streets, blocking traffic during rush hour. In Minneapolis, they blocked freeways, halting traffic both ways for upwards of an hour. In Los Angeles, they blocked a major highway and burned an effigy of Trump. One protester stated, “people have to die to make a change in this world.”

While violence in reaction to Trump’s election has come from relatively few people, a hypocritical current seems to runs through the anti-Trump side. Just last week, the media criticized Trump supporters who said they would protest should Hillary Clinton win what they believed to be a rigged election. However, as Trump gained the necessary 270 electoral votes, Clinton’s most vehement supporters began doing exactly, or more than, what they lambasted those Trump backers for suggesting. They not only took to the streets, but caused disarray and chaos.

Trump won at least 290 (and with Michigan, probably 306) electoral votes due to narrow margins in Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The last two states were surprising wins, especially since neither has supported a Republican presidential candidate since the 1980s. Clinton leads in the popular vote by .2 percent at the moment, having won California and New York by amounts larger than the entire voting populations of many states. Her popular-vote margin is likely to grow, perhaps substantially, once all of California’s ballots are counted. Trump, however, apparently won 30 states to Clinton’s 20, often by margins comparable to hers in California and New York.

Many Clinton supporters have expressed their anger about the result online. The slogan “not my president” has permeated social media, and petitions have appeared on change.org demanding that the Electoral College either elect Clinton or be abolished.

Protesters, both online and in the streets, give the impression of wanting to undermine the democratic process. Their refusal to accept the results, even though they were due partly to lower Democratic turnout in key states compared with 2012, suggests an unwillingness to tolerate diversity in politics. Had the election swung the opposite way, surely Clinton supporters would be telling Trump supporters to accept the results and move on, as they had said for weeks, anticipating her win.

Nevertheless, they engaged in the same response they mocked Trump supporters for considering. In addition, many have verbally and physically harassed and intimidated those who voted for Trump, refusing to acknowledge that many Republicans cast their ballots for economic and foreign policies rather than Trump himself. Shockingly, not all Republicans think alike. In addition, racism and homophobia are not the fundamental reasons why he won.

Furthermore, it is not as if one man has the power to undermine centuries of American progress. The president is checked by Congress and the court system. The social policies so many people fear Republicans will pursue lack both the support of the entire Republican coalition and the supermajority in the Senate necessary to pass them.

No matter how upsetting you may find the results of the election, protests and violence are not the way to enact positive political change. If you want change, get out and vote in two years. Encourage your friends to vote. Do your research and advocate for the candidate you think best fits your beliefs. America has survived through well over 200 years of presidents, some great, some not so great. Three of them, or four counting Trump, did not win the popular vote. Some elections were even more aggressively contested than this one. Nevertheless, America is still here, and in four years’ time, America will still be here.

A New York State of Mind

In the ongoing fight against terrorism, fear permeates the West. Attacks can come at any time without warning. Nonetheless, fear should not disrupt our lives. If fear drives our behavior, terrorists revel in knowing that they have disrupted civilian life. After the bombings on September 17th in New York City and nearby New Jersey, New Yorkers reacted ideally to the attacks.

Instead of signaling disarray, New Yorkers went on about their lives. “I heard the explosion, then I went to the deli,” stated a caller to NY1. New Yorker Sarah Peele tweeted that shortly after hearing the bombing from a short distance away, she went out for noodles, much to her mother’s chagrin. This seems to be a typical New York way of behaving: residents push on, despite whatever atrocities may occur around them. Fear did not stop these New Yorkers from living their lives.

For New Yorkers, the nonchalant reaction to violence is “a normal thing.” Americans across the nation should emulate this behavior to deter attacks. While it is far from the only way to prevent attacks, and may or may not actually prevent any, it gives the average American a way in which he or she can assist in the fight against terrorism.

One of the big motivators of terrorism, according to the 2003 CIA National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism, is to “subvert the rule of law and effect change through violence and fear.” By not giving in to fear and continuing to go about our lives as we normally would, we can triumph over those who seek to sabotage Western civilization.

Refusing to live in fear may not only discourage radical extremists from perpetrating attacks, but also sends the message that we are a strong and resilient society—that we will not let these barbaric acts disturb our lives.

While it is important to ensure that fear does not disrupt our lives, it is also important to maintain a healthy level of vigilance. Maintaining vigilance can help prevent further attacks by allowing one to notice something out of the ordinary.

Just this past Wednesday, Lee Parker and Ian White, two homeless men from Elizabeth, New Jersey, notified police that an abandoned backpack they found by a train station garbage can appeared to be a bomb. Their vigilance likely saved lives that day, as the backpack contained five pipe bombs.

While it may seem odd to some that New Yorkers remain so calm in the face of terror, their reaction is the appropriate way for the average person to behave to help deter terrorism. Go about your life as you normally would, and do not let fear keep you from living a normal lifestyle. Adopt a New York state of mind: do not let fear define your entire existence.

On Safe Spaces

The University of Chicago has taken unusual action against political correctness, rejecting policies of safe spaces and trigger warnings utilized by so many colleges. The Dean of Students sent a letter to the newly-matriculated class of 2020, stating that the University did not support the use of “so-called trigger warnings” or “condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces.” In doing such, Dean John Ellison demonstrated his commitment to free speech and intellectual diversity, a commitment current university faculty rarely make.

Dean Ellison’s letter is without a doubt a risky move on the part of the administration. In recent years, the administration office has been taken over several times by student activists. Following a series of sit-ins, the University of Chicago has even had to hire a private police force to protect the administration.  In sending this letter to the class of 2020, Dean Ellison made the administration vulnerable to further criticism.

The letter has been met with mixed reviews on campus. 

Several student organizations released statements applauding the letter and the university’s continued commitment to free thought and expression. 

Student activists condemned the letter, claiming that the administration is trying to protect white men from having their feelings hurt in discussion. Others claim that the administration hinders their ability to speak freely by prohibiting safe spaces. 

But safe spaces only burden those who advocate for them; the liberal activists who are the primary proponents of safe spaces are blissfully unaware of the harm they cause themselves by remaining unchallenged. In his letter, Dean Ellison spoke of his commitment to ensuring that students will not be protected from views that differ from their own. “Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority — building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds,” Ellison stated in his letter to the class of 2020. “Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.”

Demands to be coddled and protected from differing viewpoints prevent college students from strengthening and reaffirming their beliefs. Safe spaces do not provide room for growth; rather, they allow the mind to become stagnant. When a challenge to their beliefs does arise, proponents of safe spaces are completely unprepared. 

In a world chock-full of so-called “microaggressions,” too many students have become simply unable to handle challenges. Their oversensitivity, and readiness to brand anyone who offends them as bigoted, has forced liberal professors to tread lightly in fear of triggering the hypersensitivity of their students. In June, a liberal professor published an article on Vox.com titled, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” using a pseudonym out of fear of backlash. 

The fact that Dean Ellison of the University of Chicago dared to address the phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses, and to go so far as to reject some of its tenets, is commendable. Dean Ellison demonstrated that the campus culture may be shifting away from the extreme political correctness that has dominated recently. By ensuring the protection to intellectual freedom and diversity on campus, the University of Chicago shows that free thought and expression still live in academia.