Donald Trump’s inauguration last month attracted a swarm of Make America Great Again, right-wing supporters to Foggy Bottom’s campus. As a predominantly liberal campus in an overwhelmingly liberal city, it was no surprise that Trump supporters weren’t exactly welcomed to the area with open arms. But my attention was focused on my peers’ reactions to the District’s pro-Trump visitors. Where GW community members claim to support and cherish our campus’ differing political perspectives and individual backgrounds, I found an environment of anger and intolerance online.
Last weekend, I opted to watch the inauguration from my room because who needs to attend the event when students have live commentary on Fizz? But instead of comical political jests, students criticized the individuals supporting the Republican Party or those attending the inauguration. One GW community member posted “whoever is walking around wearing a MAGA hat on campus deserves to get their balls kicked,” while others reportedly recommended misdirecting Trump supporters to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport or Anacostia instead of the U.S. Capitol.
As children, many of us heard the phrase “Put yourself in someone else’s shoes.” But somewhere along the way of cable news, politics and the anonymous user option on social media, many of us have left that lesson behind.
There’s a certain irony in defending one’s identity by attacking the identity of others. What we need is to be able to move past ad hominem attacks and toward constructive discourse. Many of Trump’s policies are worth denunciation, but there is a difference between critiquing MAGA policies and MAGA people — the latter achieves nothing but disdain and division within the community.
The District is overpoweringly liberal — this presidential election, 92.5 percent of votes supported the Democratic Party. For many, it’s a draw to live in a primarily blue region. But being surrounded by like-minded opinions can often obscure the fact that the Republican Party isn’t a fringe group. The District’s, and GW’s, reaction reveals how we are not as open-minded as we may think.
To be clear, the First Amendment protects rage as well as reason. You have every right to be a raving lunatic. The question is, what do you achieve beyond a cathartic release? If you have never actually had a conversation with someone with sharply differing views, I suggest putting it to the test — you may just learn something about yourself and others.
Michael Spence, the president and provost of University College London, aptly highlighted the need for a new paradigm for campus speech. Spence describes that purposeful academia, at its core, is about “disagree[ing] well.” Truly, without any variety in thought, we would all be, for lack of a better term, boring people. Humans are born with a creative gene. Without it, we would literally be defying human nature.
I’ve repeatedly seen my peers turn on friends at the mention of their right-leaning politics. Some students are praised for participating in groups like College Democrats, but others are condemned for joining College Republicans. I wonder, when did anger become a substitute for engagement?
Liberalism is more than a political identification, it is also a model of education and experiment. A true liberal is someone who embraces diversity and values exchanges with those of opposing views. In democracy, open-mindedness, and above all else, basic human decency, is key. But to enjoy the benefits of democracy, we must remember free speech is a two-way street.
I don’t mean to imply I expect a fantasy world where everyone sings and holds hands at presidential inaugurations. We’re not always going to agree with one another — for some of us, maybe never — but we can approach these divisions without anger, bigotry or hatred. As GW students, we have the privilege of living in one of the most politically driven cities. Let’s use that honor to show we can approach our differences with maturity.
Without dissension among us, we would have no thought-provoking discourse, no individuality or uniqueness. Indeed, society would most resemble George Orwell’s Oceania. That being said, while we are all entitled to our opinions — no one deserves to be physically threatened on account of their words and beliefs.
The signs of intolerance are very simple: If your idea of engaging people with opposing views is to insult them, you’re part of the problem. If you attack people because they are part of a movement or find yourself enjoying a diatribe rather than a dialogue, it may be time to question if you’re contributing to a culture of intolerance.
As the next generation of leaders, I would hope we share a similar dream of advancing our society — through innovation, thought and creativity. If that sounds alluring, we must recommit ourselves to supporting a vibrant democracy by placing it at the heart of our education — a democracy where open discussion and the exchange of ideas are encouraged, not extinguished.
Madie Turley, a sophomore majoring in English, is an opinions writer.