Silent no more: enough is enough
Our campus must be able to engage in an open exchange of ideas, no matter how controversial or politically charged they may be
Mary-Logan Miske/ Contributor
It’s no secret that the University of San Diego strives to create a welcoming atmosphere where a diversity of cultures, traditions, and ideas is embraced. After all, the university openly professes adherence to a “Catholic intellectual tradition” which is “open to free inquiry and enriched by the contributions of many religions and schools of thought” and “regards (academic) freedom as essential” to our community. This culture of understanding and civil discourse is central to our school’s identity as a Changemaker campus.
There have been many circumstances where the USD community has rallied around our fellow students when faced with bullying or acts of intolerance. What if I told you about a specific group that faces backlash, criticism, and demeaning labels on a daily basis? This group has often been ignored as reprobates but then considered inhumane when only seen as an obstacle to what has been deemed the irreproachable progressive path. I am talking about the silent majority: conservatives.
You won’t hear a lot about conservative students being “oppressed” because most keep to themselves out of fear that their opinions will seem unpopular and cost them friends as a result. Ask yourself, “who in my class may have conservative values?” “With whom have I waited in line at Mickey’s Pasta that holds conservative values?” “Who in my friend group do I least expect to have conservative values?” The truth is, there are many holding these values that you would never expect because they are mostly silent about such values and beliefs they may feel are not welcomed, accepted, or tolerated.
Over Labor Day weekend, a group of my friends, mostly USD students, went to a Trump Boat Parade to show our pride for our president and his accomplishments and to bond around our conservative values – hard work, freedom, family, and patriotism. It was an unforgettable and upbeat day filled with experiences, conversations and memories that we won’t soon forget. But another USD student, whose name shall not be disclosed for privacy reasons, took the liberty of spreading malicious falsehoods about us on social media, declaring that we are “white supremacists” due to our open support for President Trump. This student used a public Instagram account, with over 900 followers, to post a screenshot of a privately shared photo of us holding a “TRUMP 2020” flag. The screenshot, taken without permission, added our Instagram usernames, and therefore, our identities. The story post immediately following the initial screenshot was an unfounded and hateful implication that we are white supremacists. It read:
“Supporting Trump means supporting white supremacy. Supporting Trump is supporting a platform built on outright racism. If this is something you do not understand, please take the time to educate yourself.”
The student’s Instagram post demonstrates an intolerant and ignorant attempt to besmirch us on the grounds of “supporting white supremacy.” This individual does not personally know any of us in the picture.
How could a student at the University of San Diego – an institution which prides itself on its mission of “creating a diverse and inclusive community, and preparing leaders who are dedicated to ethical conduct and compassionate service” – be so callous as to falsely accuse my friends and me of holding such despicable sentiments, using a social media platform for a microphone? For a student attending USD to defame us as “white supremacists” before our online Torero community is nothing short of attempted character assassination. Exploiting other people by posting or reposting a picture of them in such a negative light without their consent is an act of cyberbullying in and of itself, but the suggestion that we are “white supremacists” and “support a system built on racism” is not only entirely false and unfounded, but such acts can have lasting impacts on our mental health, physical safety, and reputations long beyond the few seconds that it took to conceive of and post this statement. As an academic institution that prides itself on thoughtful discourse about such deep and meaningful topics, we can do a lot better than this.
Given the current political climate in our country where people are harassed and “canceled” for merely questioning the status quo, or mob mentality, and expressing our first amendment rights, the USD community should be a sanctuary for tolerance and a healthy debate of ideas, not a place where a group of like-minded students can be incriminated as hateful or bigoted individuals merely for demonstrating support for our president.
Not only has this student’s malicious post publicly harassed us in front of hundreds of fellow Toreros and thousands of our friends and family members, causing a ripple effect of instantaneous judgment and implicit castigation by others, but it has forced us to take the time to reject this distortion of reality and regain our standing amongst the USD community and beyond.
When it is not you in the crosshairs of such a vicious attack, it can be easy to remain silent or downplay it as just a simple post. You may say, “What difference does it make?” This is precisely how civil discourse breaks down and an entire segment of a population can be cast off as “deplorables” or a “disease” to be removed at all costs. While we, as changemakers, certainly are entitled to our fair share of strong opinions about the ideas in which we believe, we can and must be above the open hostility and turmoil that we may see reflected in the society around us. We are better than that.
As a member on the leadership team for USD’s Students for Life organization, I want all students at USD, no matter their religion, race, sexuality, or political background, to be heard, welcomed, and valued in our community, in accordance with the University’s stated mission to foster a “diverse and inclusive community.”
By constructively engaging with ideas and opinions other than our own, we believe that students will be able to take full advantage of an intellectually-stimulating education, and develop into truly effective changemakers who “confront humanity’s urgent challenges.” As President of USD’s Republican Club, I also believe that our campus must be able to engage in an open exchange of ideas, no matter how controversial or politically charged they may be. There is no place for blanket generalizations, especially intellectually dishonest ones, about groups of people in either of these organizations, and my hope is that we can root out this type of hatred and condemnation by calling it out when it occurs.
To the USD community, I ask that, regardless of your political stance, you treat this type of cyber harassment the same as any other that casts unfounded negative dispersions on an entire group of people. We must not permit bullying, silencing or the “cancel culture” to exist amongst us. We, as Toreros and changemakers, must understand that there is a lot more unifying us than there is tearing us apart. We cannot remain silent.
Victoria Hoven, Arianna Karlage, AnneMarie Rodgers, and Jack Uribe contributed to this op-ed.
“The views expressed in the editorial and op-ed sections are not necessarily those of The USD Vista staff, the University of San Diego, or its student body.”
To Mary Logan and the other contributors to this op-ed,
I would like to firstly recognize the gravity of the cyberbullying that you have faced because of your views. People are generally much more outspoken online than they are in real life, and I’m sorry that you have been subject to the malicious (and often close-minded) nature of today’s online discourse.
That being said, I find it rather ironic that you call for mutual understanding and open-mindedness when you do not consider the verity and truth underlying some of the responses to your views and actions. These responses that you have noted, such as the claim that anyone who supports the current president is a white supremacist, is obviously not true (especially for yourselves). However, if you are truly committed to fostering an open-minded community at USD, you might want to consider why individuals feel that way. Has the president not blatantly vilified refugees and people of color (consider, for example, his recent comments on refugees and Ilhan Omar in Minnesota)? In doing so, does he not provide individuals with the assurance that such hate is justified and acceptable? How are you, as individuals who support the president, attempting to reject such hate?
Furthermore, your calls for open-mindedness seem rather hypocritical considering some of the posts on your various social media accounts (I am specifically referring to the Turning Point USD account). You say that you want to create a community discourse that allows for open-minded discourse, and yet a recent post on your instagram shows that you are spreading pins that say “Socialism Sucks”. Considering that there are individuals who support socialism at USD, how does creating such a pin allow for open-minded discourse? Are you not, in creating and spreading these pins, furthering the political divide that you claim to resent?
I would also like to address your claim that you are “questioning the status quo”. The recent BLM movements and initiatives to create inclusive environments for minorities are not, in fact, the status quo that you believe them to be. Rather, these movements have gained popularity because they are actually resisting the status quo of the historic invisibility and marginalization of groups such as people of color, disabled individuals, and the queer community. By referring to such movements as supporting the status quo, you are inherently erasing (and ignoring) the prevalence of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other manifestations of hate that has been maintained and perpetuated throughout the history of American society.
I do not bring up these points as a means to bring attention away from the cyberbullying that you have all suffered through. I do not agree with the individuals who have maligned you online, and I actually appreciate your calls for open-mindedness and for discourse in the USD community. However, I urge you to not only vocalize these ideals but to also practice them in your actions. If you are truly open-minded, engage with the people who have different views than yourself instead of attacking their beliefs. I can promise you that, while I do not share your views, I am willing to listen to and converse with you. I think that many other students at USD are willing to do the same. However, such discourse depends on a mutual open-mindedness and willingness to listen, and I have yet to see you exhibit these sentiments in anything other than the words in this article.
I’m willing to put my name out there on this comment in solidarity with Mary and her friends. Perhaps the fact that this feels inherently very risky and averse to advancing my personal standing and reputation in society will serve as a small signal to USD that they must expand the ever pervasive idea of “diversity and inclusion” to everyone.
While reading this post, I was embarrassed by how hypocritical and selfish your argument sounded.
It doesn’t matter whether someone knows you on a personal level or not. Supporting Trump is enough information to judge someone’s morals and ideals. By supporting Trump, you either support his beliefs on inequality, or you are choosing to be ignorant towards his very obvious racism, and both are equally bad.
It is not enough to simply not be racist. We must be anti-racist, and supporting Trump, whether you are racist or not, is clearly not being anti-racist.
By deciding to openly support Donald Trump, you should have expected this type of negative reaction from people who feel like their human rights are being dismissed under his presidency.
People of color are being murdered and are not getting justice, and your biggest concern is being called out for your political views? That is privilege.
Basic human rights and decencies aren’t a cute little debate for your tuesday morning lectures. Supporting a president who actively works against the most disenfranchised members of your USD community stands against everything USD professes – most especially Catholic Social Teaching.
This is the most ignorant article I have ever read, I am shocked at the level of hypocrisy. Get educated and know what you’re talking about next time. You’re not oppressed, do better, be better.
This is an interesting article. After reading the article and then the comments, I have a better understanding of the type of community that exists at the University of San Diego. Several of the comments provide further evidence of USD’s community to be intolerant of views that they disagree with. It was brave of Mary-Logan to speak up against the intolerance she feels goes on within the USD community, just as it was brave of those who spoke up when there were attacks on the LGBTQ community in previous semesters. One thing that I noticed differently this time was rather than the USD community as a whole rallying behind Mary-Logan, they continued in the attack. This hypocrisy is not lost on me.
On the topic of political divide. There will always be differing points of view on every topic. There will never be a political system that makes everyone happy; only ones that please only some people or completely oppress everybody. Stating that you disagree with something is and should be completely acceptable. The idea that stating an opposing opinion “only increases the political divide” is obvious. It is an opposing opinion after all. The only way to not “increase the political divide” is to 1) have a conversation not just point fingers, or 2) everyone submit to a single point of view. The latter seems to be what some of the commenters on this article prefer.
Now I have spoken to several faculty, staff, and students about being right leaning on various issues on the USD campus. Without exception all of them keep silent on many issues because of repercussions that they fear will occur. Students fear reprisal from other classmates and concern over their grades. Yes, some students have experienced reduction in their grades at USD due to their opinions being different than that of their professor. No I will not give names. Faculty worry about backlash not just from their students but also from fellow faculty.
On a final note, the idea that you can judge a person’s ideals, points of view or beliefs in totality without actually getting to know someone is the definition of prejudice. In case you don’t believe me: Merriam-Webster definition -> an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge; an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
As I read your narrative, the victim role you have placed yourself in, is not as compelling as you may think. You may be able to give me a laundry list of reasons you support him from your tax bill, to a specific policy you like. But you will never be able to give me a list of reasons to overlook his other cruelty. He is one person. You cannot pick the pieces you like and ignore those which don’t affect you. He is a racist. He is a misogynist. He is the person most responsible for the genocide at our border. And no, i’m not “being dramatic”. The U.N. definition of genocide covers forced adoption and forced sterilization both have which have happened in our country under this president. Those stolen children and sterilized women are victims. Not you. You are not a victim because you chose to attend a public event supporting a widely hated man.
On another note, the student that made the instagram post violated USD’s Policy 2.2.2 Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment. As did McDonald, Rocha, Dombo, and Leung I their remarks. Should Mary-Logan or any of the other contributors wish to pursue it, well that is up to them.
The policy to which you refer specifically addresses discrimination in a work or education environment of someone in a protected class. As of right now, political affiliation is not a protected class (you may well argue it should or could be but that is not the argument you made in this comment). Additionally, I stand by my comment and would ask you to point to a specific part of comment that you would identify as as harassment. I am simply stating my opinion that I am not persuaded by the narrative that portrays these contributors as victims of anything beyond their own choices. They chose to attend and chose to take a photo. In the age of social media, it is well known that even the most private photos have the potential of becoming public. Although the contributors may have thought they were sharing the photo “privately”, it was a public enough forum that someone was able to take a screenshot. If the contributors did not want their attendance publicized they had many choices – not to attend, not to take a photo, or not to share said photo on a pseudo-private forum.