The fog from the ocean slipped over the icy roads, making the morning light whimsical, if not somewhat creepy. The man beside me was clearly the quiet type, hardened by manual labor and softened by the love of his wife of more than 40 years.
“You know, every time I see those refugees on TV, they don’t look like they’re starving,” he stated in the voice of a man who spends all his time with chickens.
The sun had begun to crest the hills behind us and the colors overtook the gray fog, turning the river and valley into something resembling a Kinkade painting. I turned my head toward the man and opened my mouth, but nothing came out. I wanted to say something along the lines of, “Are you freaking kidding me?” but I felt my jaw fall and then lift itself back into place, the line of my lips flat and stagnant.
The case law around First Amendment rights is ever evolving and I hear something stupid every day which confirms it is still in effect. Despite the movements of the Trump administration, the restrictions placed upon the media and the label of “fake news,” we are still free to speak. For now. In some places.
While the White House spent the week amidst controversy for banning CNN, The New York Times and other news outlets from a press gaggle, the University of Oregon made the list of ten worst schools for free speech. For many on campus, the immediate response sounded something like, “Us? Never!” or “We are a liberal bastion of openness and we are all free here!”
But some nodded in understanding after the lengthy (and ongoing) ‘Shurtz Debacle,’ when a UO professor allegedly wore blackface to a Halloween party. I understand my use of the word “allegedly” throws me on thin ice with most readers, so let me clarify a few facts regarding this incident:
1) Professor Shurtz dressed as the cover of a book she wished to draw attention to, “Black Man in a White Coat,” in the hope of starting a discussion about race in higher education
2) the administration used the word “blackface” in their student-wide email which incensed (rightly so) the student population
3) historically, blackface was a term reserved for those who deliberately dressed as African Americans for the sake of degradation or mockery; something that even the UO report acknowledges Professor Shurtz did not do
4) the Black community at UO has every right to be hurt, angry and feel any way about this situation that they darn well please.
When I talk about free speech, I extend this wholeheartedly to those who have felt oppression and isolation in ways I never have (as well as to those who haven’t). As a Jew, I do have some understanding of oppression and racial hatred but I don’t understand how this incident made the Black community feel — and neither does anyone else who decided to be enraged on behalf of the Black community. That is the point where I feel lasting damage occurred, because the result of that surrogate rage led to an enforcement of a “harassment” ban that amounts to what the Washington Post referred to as “attempts to suppress the expression of speech that is perceived as expressing certain political, social and religious viewpoints.”
The UO community at large does not get to claim “understanding” on this issue. I can’t understand it. Professor Shurtz, poor judgment admitted, didn’t understand the way she would impact her students and this community. But that very lack of understanding is precisely why we needed to take the time to hear her, the time to say we will allow you to speak and be given an opportunity to speak in return.
One of the most poignant posts I saw this week on social media came from Pete Souza, a former White House photographer for both Reagan and Obama. Souza posted a picture of then President Obama outside a press conference and listed the news outlets present (those banned by Trump), and then added in a parenthetical, “as well as Fox news.” We only get to claim the high ground on free speech when we are willing to extend the First Amendment to speech that may offend, or enrage or disgust us. Like the sort of thing you might hear when an older, white farmer is kind enough to give you a ride.
I did eventually find my words and respond to his comment about refugees, but it wasn’t to tell him he was wrong or to list all the things I found abhorrent about his view. I simply asked him to tell me more about what he thought and why. Why would he ever listen to my views if I was unwilling to first listen to his?