On March 21, students at Emory University found “Trump” written in chalk all over their campus. The Washington Post reports that 40–50 students, in response to their fellow classmates expressing support for a contender in the presidential election, began a protest.

According to the Emory Wheel, their student newspaper, protesters could be heard shouting: “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad. Students moved to the Administration Building, shouting, “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

These students claim that other students expressing their support for a political candidate with chalk creates an unsafe environment. It is my personal belief that students thrown into these fits of raging victimhood when confronted by opposing opinions are mentally unfit for the intellectual diversity of college campuses, let alone that of the real world. This is certainly no defense of Trump; I don’t like Trump. The difference between the Emory protesters and myself is that I am capable of articulating my contentions with Trump without screaming like an upset child. I do, however, have something I think may help them through this tumultuous time: “General Trigger Warning for College — Opinions.”

This type of behavior should be laughed at, not taken seriously. Sadly, we must pay close attention, waiting on bated breath, to the reaction of the administration at Emory University. This is because these types of college protesters, which are growing alarmingly common, are only placated by a few things: the resignation of the chancellor, tighter speech policies on campus or smaller areas in which free expression is allowed. I’ve written two articles on this subject, titled “University Echo Chambers” and “Struggle for Free Speech,” highlighting the severity of college speech codes. We can see these types of policies being implemented all across the country due to the appeasement of these delicate souls. This is a trend that must be resisted with tooth and nail in order to restore true freedom of speech on college campuses. 

The Emory Wheel interviewed Emory University President James W. Wagner. He asked, “Was it really just a message about a political preference, a candidate preference or was it a harsher message?” He continued, “And I will tell you, those who met with me were genuine in their concerns that it was the latter.” 

He also said that the Freedom of Expression Committee was meeting to discuss whether those responsible for “the chalking” were in violation of Emory’s policy.

Is it off-putting to anyone else that the “Freedom of Expression Committee” at Emory University was meeting to determine if writing a presidential candidate’s name in chalk was in compliance with their policies? A more fitting name for that committee would be “the Speech Police.” It’s completely possible that the investigation of those dangerous chalk markings could all have been part of a strategy to mollify the protesters without necessarily taking sides; however, this is dangerously close to granting validity to their claims.

This is what the regressive left looks like: those who would take the classical liberal stance, “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it,” and substitute it with the modern progressive stance, “I disagree with what you think, so I want to use policy and law to criminalize your expression of that thought.”

In closing, I want to thank all the students of NC State for braving the dangerous Trump chalk around campus over the past few days. I know it’s been difficult, almost as difficult as looking at Bernie bumper stickers, but I’m proud of you all for conducting yourselves in a much more respectable manner than those protesters at Emory University. To my knowledge, there have been no calls for censorship of this expression, and although I disagree with Trump, I’m proud to be part of a community that allows for diverse opinions. As I’ve said before, intellectual comfort isn’t intellectual at all, and college, as a market of ideas, should always allow for free speech, uncensored and unrestricted.