The morning of April 7th, a series of pro-Trump chalkings appeared on walkways and garages in the village. One of those chalkings, written along a wall in the stairway between Seigle and the Village, read “Make Mexico Pay.” Later that day, a student posted a picture of that specific chalking to Yik Yak, which was followed by various comments with sexist, racist, and homophobic language.
The following day, after multiple students reported these chalkings and the Yik Yak posts to the BRSS, Lori White released an email, stating that political speech is welcome and that she “encourage[s] you to be thoughtful in the way you share your ideas and opinions, and to do so within a few university guidelines.” The university guidelines she referred to on chalkings deal solely with chalking locations. Multiple Yik Yaks appeared in reaction to White’s email, criticizing the PC culture and oversensitivity of Wash U.
This piece is my response to the chalkings, administration’s reaction, and the student body at Wash U:
----
When I first approached the wall, I saw students looking down, laughing, and walking away. My friend had sent me pictures that morning of the Trump chalkings around the Village. It’s not really a surprise; Trump campaign ads have appeared all over college campuses. Universities are not allowed to interfere with chalkings for political campaigns by students, since that would be a violation of political expression. As White said in her email: “this is a time for you to be active and engaged citizens and to feel free to join in rigorous debate and discussion of ideas and opinions.”
The most prominent chalking read “Make Mexico Pay,” written across a wall. I was messaged that morning by a fellow Latinx student who, like myself and many other Latinx students on campus, read this as a threat.
Many students took to Yik Yak, pointing out that the chalking was *obviously* referring to the border wall between the US and Mexico that Trump proposed during his presidential campaign announcement; the same speech in which he referred to Mexicans as rapists and smugglers.
Explaining the chalking as a reference to a policy proposal by Trump does not defend its legitimacy; it properly identifies Trump’s words as a direct threat against immigrants.
Regardless of my personal political opinions, I understand why a university has to protect political expression, regardless of party or position. But how can administration protect a student’s political expression when their candidate’s “campaign’s messages” include blatantly prejudicial remarks? Had that message been written by itself, without the other “Vote Trump” chalkings, it would have been considered hateful speech against a minority
Or maybe it wouldn’t have. As a member of the Latinx community on this campus, I, along with many other students have faced aggressions because of our ethnicity, nationality, or immigration status. “Make Mexico Pay” is not just a catchy slogan that an over-the-top politician screamed into a microphone. It is part of a web of violent threats posed against a minority made by a dominating “American” voice.
White’s email to the student body did not identify the “campaign chalkings” by Trump’s name. The phrase “Make Mexico Pay” was simplified as a “campaign message.”
After White’s email was sent out, posts flooded Yik Yak, mostly making claims against WashU students for being sensitive and for trying to suppress political speech. Posts and comments referring to the “Make Mexico Pay” chalking as the primary source of anger were for the most part challenged or ignored.
One comment that personally stuck out to me questioned the legitimacy of pain coming from the Latinx community, stating that the chalking wasn’t an inherently racist remark because “Mexican is not a race it’s a nationality.”
As a Latinx student at Wash U, I have experienced the following aggressions:
This is all I can remember at the moment.
I cried the day I saw the Trump chalkings appear on campus. Not in a dramatic, overly-emotional feat after all my fears had been realized; but because it’s a lot different to hear Trump jokes all over television and see Trump antics all over the news than it is to wake up to a message written by someone in your classroom, sanctioned by your university, threatening your safety.
I am not surprised that this happened. I am frustrated that the university chose to publicly defend it. And I am done with a student body that makes dialogues on prejudice and racism feel like screaming at a wall.
The following day, after multiple students reported these chalkings and the Yik Yak posts to the BRSS, Lori White released an email, stating that political speech is welcome and that she “encourage[s] you to be thoughtful in the way you share your ideas and opinions, and to do so within a few university guidelines.” The university guidelines she referred to on chalkings deal solely with chalking locations. Multiple Yik Yaks appeared in reaction to White’s email, criticizing the PC culture and oversensitivity of Wash U.
This piece is my response to the chalkings, administration’s reaction, and the student body at Wash U:
----
When I first approached the wall, I saw students looking down, laughing, and walking away. My friend had sent me pictures that morning of the Trump chalkings around the Village. It’s not really a surprise; Trump campaign ads have appeared all over college campuses. Universities are not allowed to interfere with chalkings for political campaigns by students, since that would be a violation of political expression. As White said in her email: “this is a time for you to be active and engaged citizens and to feel free to join in rigorous debate and discussion of ideas and opinions.”
The most prominent chalking read “Make Mexico Pay,” written across a wall. I was messaged that morning by a fellow Latinx student who, like myself and many other Latinx students on campus, read this as a threat.
Many students took to Yik Yak, pointing out that the chalking was *obviously* referring to the border wall between the US and Mexico that Trump proposed during his presidential campaign announcement; the same speech in which he referred to Mexicans as rapists and smugglers.
Explaining the chalking as a reference to a policy proposal by Trump does not defend its legitimacy; it properly identifies Trump’s words as a direct threat against immigrants.
Regardless of my personal political opinions, I understand why a university has to protect political expression, regardless of party or position. But how can administration protect a student’s political expression when their candidate’s “campaign’s messages” include blatantly prejudicial remarks? Had that message been written by itself, without the other “Vote Trump” chalkings, it would have been considered hateful speech against a minority
Or maybe it wouldn’t have. As a member of the Latinx community on this campus, I, along with many other students have faced aggressions because of our ethnicity, nationality, or immigration status. “Make Mexico Pay” is not just a catchy slogan that an over-the-top politician screamed into a microphone. It is part of a web of violent threats posed against a minority made by a dominating “American” voice.
White’s email to the student body did not identify the “campaign chalkings” by Trump’s name. The phrase “Make Mexico Pay” was simplified as a “campaign message.”
After White’s email was sent out, posts flooded Yik Yak, mostly making claims against WashU students for being sensitive and for trying to suppress political speech. Posts and comments referring to the “Make Mexico Pay” chalking as the primary source of anger were for the most part challenged or ignored.
One comment that personally stuck out to me questioned the legitimacy of pain coming from the Latinx community, stating that the chalking wasn’t an inherently racist remark because “Mexican is not a race it’s a nationality.”
As a Latinx student at Wash U, I have experienced the following aggressions:
- A white professor called me “Señorita ______” on the second day of class
- A white student told me that my dialect of Spanish is inappropriate and incomprehensible
- A student’s parent told me I spoke Spanish like a slut
- Multiple students (who I do not know) have touched and pet my hair without my permission
- Multiple students (who I do not know) have slapped my ass without my permission
- A professor asked me what my mother’s political affiliation was with respect to her home country
- Multiple professors have referred to undocumented immigrants as illegal aliens; illegal immigrants; illegal _______
- Multiple students have told me that I “don’t look hispanic”
- Multiple students told me that I look “really hispanic”
- A professor reminded my class of my ethnicity while he was stating a political opinion of my mother’s home country
- Multiple professors and students in the classroom have ridiculed me for accidentally saying spanish words when I speak English
- A faculty member at Cornerstone told me I was struggling in class because English wasn’t my first language, despite English being my primary language
- A white professor told me that people in my mother’s home country were starving and that I should care
- Multiple students have asked me if I’ve ever vacationed/partied in the country my mother was exiled from
- A student asked me if I had ever been mistaken for a prostitute
- At least three students have asked if my family swam here
- At least two students asked me when I swam here
This is all I can remember at the moment.
I cried the day I saw the Trump chalkings appear on campus. Not in a dramatic, overly-emotional feat after all my fears had been realized; but because it’s a lot different to hear Trump jokes all over television and see Trump antics all over the news than it is to wake up to a message written by someone in your classroom, sanctioned by your university, threatening your safety.
I am not surprised that this happened. I am frustrated that the university chose to publicly defend it. And I am done with a student body that makes dialogues on prejudice and racism feel like screaming at a wall.