September 1 - September 7, 2016
THE MIAMI HURRICANE
OPINION
AROUND THE NATION
POLITICS
Safe spaces or free-speech suppression?
The Supreme Court, Roger Ailes and the decline of bipartisanship in America
W
i t h the start o f the semester, many students find themselves living on a college campus for By Sarah Samuels the first time. At Contributing Columnist the beautiful and sunny University of Miami, students expect to learn, grow and occasionally party. However, these aren’t the only things students around the country are expecting of their universities. Once considered places for open discourse and intellectual growth, universities are now being charged with the responsibility of creating “safe spaces” for students. Not everyone thinks this is a positive development, though. Meet Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer for conservative news source Breitbart News and an outspoken social-media personality. He even has a nation-wide campus tour dubbed the “Dangerous F****t Tour.” As both a gay male and a conservative, he is at a highly controversial political intersection which has bought him at least as many opponents as fans. Some of these opponents are even willing to threaten violence in order to shut him down; University of Central Florida’s Deputy Chief of Police Brett Meade shut down Milo’s speech at UCF. The decision was made “following threats of violence on social media,” according to Breitbart News, as well as conflicts with other campus events requiring security that day.
You may not agree with Mr. Yiannopoulos. Nonetheless, college campuses are places to grow intellectually, and that requires the free exchange of ideas. You can publicly disagree with Milo, and you even have the right to peacefully protest his events. Yet forcing speakers to cancel speeches at universities because you disagree with them, either through petitioning for their cancellation or by threatening violence, is incongruous with the ideals of intellectual growth and free speech. Furthermore, outside of the academic sphere, students will not be granted these same protections from ideas that conflict with their own. These students have a choice to either stifle free speech and ideas on the campuses they call home, or embrace them and converse with those who think differently than they do. Maybe even learn something as a result. So UM students should ask themselves: What kind of campus do we want to be? Do we want to be like UCF, and shut down those who disagree with us? Or should our practices mirror University of Chicago, whose dean of students recently demonstrated their commitment to free speech in a letter to incoming freshmen that expressed their disapproval for safe spaces and trigger warnings? Regardless of your personal point of view, free speech is a shared value that must be upheld regardless of who is speaking. Otherwise, when it’s your turn, you may be the one who is silenced and in a democratic society, everyone’s voice should be heard. Sarah Samuels is a junior majoring in biochemistry.
Are you a Hurricane Entrepreneur ? Do YOU Have A $ million $ Idea ? www.singapore.biz & www.cuba.biz Are Available For Jt. Development Contact The Site Owner via The Web-Site with your ideas ? (8-17)
I
nvolving young people in politics has been a major theme in the 2016 presidential race, likely due to the fact that so many young By Makenzie Karbon Senior Columnist people are disillusioned with the political process. Their apathy is justified — the presidential debates revealed a brand of shameless debauchery that is worthy of a time slot on TLC. Corruption allegations and irascible Twitter feuds regularly saturate morning headlines and evening talk shows. All the while, resentment for party leadership grows, and fewer people seem inclined to reach across the aisle and compromise for the sake of bettering the country. Things were not always this way. Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the Supreme Court in 1993 and was confirmed by the Senate in a 96-3 vote. That is to say, one of the most ideologically liberal justices in the history of our country’s highest court had only three votes cast against her – a moment of unthinkable bipartisanship in comparison to the current Senate’s actions toward President Obama and Merrick Garland. The polarized and politicized atmosphere in which we currently find ourselves is consequential of the way news is presented and consumed. Established by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcast license holders to present controversial issues of public importance in a fair and balanced manner. This rule was eliminated in 1987, just years before Roger Ailes, a former Republican strategist, founded Fox News and forever changed the tone of American politics. What Ailes did was as cunning as it was injurious. He replaced dispassionate news spreads with big, “hot” stories, attractive anchors and colloquial, conservative discourse that viewers adored. But behind all of the pomp and sheen was Ailes’s notorious brutality and willingness to publicly assail individuals who criticized him. Not only did this thwart the standard of fair and balanced journalism, but it also
7
gave way to an atmosphere of highly personal, ideological and vitriolic language that has polluted the news we consume. We tend to think that if someone doesn’t share our own stance on a topic, it’s not because they may know something that we don’t, it’s because they are wrong and probably stupid. This type of discourse sets a dangerous precedent in which objective reporting is secondary to divisive remarks and partisan commentary that undermine, rather than enhance, the public’s ability to make informed decisions about the way its democracy operates. The creation of Fox News is obviously not the only factor contributing to the transformation of news media. In the last year alone, the Supreme Court has made several rulings on particularly moral issues, such as the legality of same-sex marriage, abortion, immigrants’ rights and free speech. These decisions attempt to answer such difficult questions as: at what point are humans considered alive and how do we balance the authority of the state with the prerogatives of a woman? Who is the federal government responsible for protecting? Does restricting speech for the comfort of a community undermine the sanctity of the first amendment? When stripped of their polarizing language, these questions clearly do not have simple answers. Yet people are so quick to plant themselves on one side of an issue and never consider the legitimacy of contrasting opinions. This mentality is the reason there are still only eight Supreme Court justices. It is why Donald Trump has essentially offended his way to the top of the Republican ticket. It is why so many Americans have lost faith in a government that alleges to be of the people, for the people and by the people. Now this all seems pretty hopeless, but it’s not. Read the news. All the news. Don’t just understand what the other side thinks, understand why. Empathize. Question your own opinions. Discuss issues with people who aren’t like you, especially when they are hard to find. Be wrong. Write about it. Vote. It’ll get better. Mackenzie Karbon is a sophomore majoring in jazz performance. Her column, Here’s That Rainy Day, runs the first Thursday of each month.