Marquette Wire

Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

Photo by Brian Georgeson

Photo by Brian Georgeson

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






By: Jacob Pieczynski

Marquette University Young Americans for Freedom hosted controversial columnist, podcast host and editor Ben Shapiro. It was a school-sponsored evening of ignorance, white privilege perpetuation and lots of deflection disguised as bad jokes.

Shapiro spoke on a breadth of controversial topics including: victim privilege, the myth of white privilege, the myth of the disadvantaged woman, the misrepresentation of rape on college campuses, the myth of LGBTQ disadvantage, transgender individuals’ mental illness, the myth of institutionalized racism and victimhood as a perpetuation of poverty.

Shapiro opened his speech by attacking and dissecting a statement released by Marquette’s student-run Youth Empowerment Program, calling the student authors “not only stupid, but quasi-illiterate.” Later came the claim that white privilege victimhood is nonexistent and simply making “good decisions” would allow minorities to prosper in America, citing Asian Americans as proof. However, Shapiro neglected to disclose that Asian Americans often borrow white privilege the same way scholars like Karen Brodkin say Jewish Americans borrow white privilege.

The most disturbing claim of the evening was clearly Shapiro’s forward thought that trans people are “mentally ill.” He referenced a past appearance on the Dr. Drew show in which he calls Zoey Tur, a transgender woman, “sir.” Shapiro recounted the incident more like a comedy bit, quipping jokes about the octaves of transgender people’s voices and their “biology” to a laughing audience.

So what is Marquette doing by bringing a speaker like Ben Shapiro to campus?

I assume Marquette believes they are allowing for discussion of ideas. Oct. 14, in response to the protest of the Young Americans for Freedom’s pro-life display, Marquette Vice President for Student Affairs Xavier Cole wrote to the student body suggesting that student organizations “begin a dialogue around a particular issue.”

The problem is that no space for discussion exists, and bringing speakers like Shapiro hardly creates these spaces. Shapiro actively encouraged leftist questions from the audience, however after listening to a speaker attack the human rights of minority individuals and deny the existence of institutional racism, it hardly seemed like a welcoming invitation. Shapiro’s welcome was less than inclusive: “I won’t mash you too bad.” What reassurance…

This seems to be a growing trend in our society: Individuals and organizations attack notions, often of common humanity, decency and human rights, as liberal positions. By doing so, they create the illusion that the opposite of these notions or ideologies (a.k.a. hate) is a legitimate conservative position. Finally, by masking the opposite ideology of hate or ignorance as conservative, they legitimatize its discussion as a matter of political debate or free speech.

In reality, these disguised “political positions” are nothing more than hate. Hate is not a political policy. Racism, xenophobia, sexism, transphobia, homophobia and so on are not political positions; they are human deficiencies with no place in political discussion because they are not politic. There are plenty of self-proclaimed “conservative” Republicans that accept disparaged groups while maintaining a right-wing political agenda, proving the irrelevance of hate to true politics.

Marquette University, be it student government or the institution itself, legitimatized Shapiro’s hate and ignorance as political discourse by extending an invitation to him. I am open to true conservative policy debate, but hate is not even in the category of politics and should not be negotiable, especially to a self-proclaimed “inclusive” institution as stated in Marquette’s Statement on Human Dignity and Diversity.

They can put the opening tagline that the views presented are not the views of Marquette all they want. The audience laughed through these statements at the beginning of the evening, and I think it may be the one thing we are in agreement on. Marquette’s funding of this speaker, through student activity (Marquette University Student Government) allocated funds, legitimatizes hate as political discourse and sets precedent for the debate of human rights issues.

Jacob Pieczynski is a junior at Marquette University.

He can be reached at jacob.pieczynski@marquette.edu

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Comments

5 Responses to “Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse”

  1. Daniel Bob on February 14th, 2017 1:21 pm

    You can’t be serious.

    “That’s not a legitimate position because it’s denying a human right”

    “Okay, let’s debate about whether or not it actually is a human right and if so or if not how that applies in this situatio-”

    “No, that’s attacking my rights.”

    “What?”

    “My position is the only legitimate one and you trying to state yours is an attack on human rights because there’s nothing to yours but hate.”

    “Well how about we debate so that you can see I have more arguments than ‘I hate you?'”

    “No, because the only argument you have is that you hate me.”

    “Ugh.”

  2. Ron Robinson on February 14th, 2017 5:59 pm

    This is the most hateful diatribe on a speaker, you should just agree to disagree with!

    You are arrogant: thinking only your views should be heard only your experiences (or imagined experiences) matter.

    I won’t say the cliche “check your privilege.” I say: grow up, people will disagree with you in life.

  3. Joel Burfeind on February 14th, 2017 8:02 pm

    Jake, I respect your feelings and emotions. However, I caution you against labeling conservative opinion as “hate” while simultaneously deeming your opinion as ultimate truth that can’t be argued with. I am not a hateful person, but I am a pro-life and opposed to same sex marriage and transgenderism. Does that make me hateful because I don’t conform to what you hold as true and right?
    It may not be a political debate, but it is a debate nonetheless.

    Let me illustrate. If you are pro-choice, and for aborting human lives inside the womb, would it be fair of me to label you a disheartened human who doesn’t care about life? Do I say there’s absolutely no debate, all pro-choicers are hateful and they don’t have a legitimate opinion? No. I know there are people who disagree, but I don’t label their opinion as untrue and hateful.

    Rounding up: hate is a strong word that I’d caution against using when describing a belief that is opposite of what you hold. People’s truths differ, and yours isn’t the ultimate truth.

    Thanks.

  4. Pepe the Frog on February 15th, 2017 11:18 pm

    “Equality Speech is the ONLY Speech Allowed!”

    Oh yeah, and remember goys, “democracy and human rights” are your greatest allies.
    — ((( Jacob Pieczynski )))

    It’s becoming more and more evident to the normies what you and your tribesmen are up to. Chill out.

  5. Dr. Necessitor on February 17th, 2017 6:12 pm

    Believers have nothing to debate with but name-calling. You view the world through the lens of a political ideology consisting of a collection of beliefs made-up to achieve a political end. Those of us willing to put in the work to go it alone and challenge peoples’ world views, to develop and test our own beliefs, to be proven wrong and learn from it and to always adapt…our worldview relies on facts and reason so we have ammunition with which to debate. Whether your defending Islam, Scientology, Marxism, feminism or any other ideology the result is the same, you “believers” have nothing in your ideological quiver with which to defend yourselves except for hyperbolic name-calling. And this op-ed piece is a typical example.

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




Navigate Right
Navigate Left
  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    Op-Ed: A plea for critical thinking

  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    Op-Ed: Intellectual diversity is most important diversity on college campuses

  • Letters

    Reader Submission: In defense of safe spaces

  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    READER SUBMISSION: MUSG President and EVP-elect lay out future goals

  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    READER SUBMISSION: Marquette must recognize social problems in its midst

  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    READER SUBMISSION: Spring GSRC forums to address debated topics

  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    READER SUBMISSION: McAdams’s treatment of instructor is deplorable

  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    Editor says farewell after a hectic year

  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    READER SUBMISSION: Greek Life responds to sexual assault allegations

  • Op-Ed: Legitimization of hate as political discourse

    Letters

    READER SUBMISSION: Diversity plan seeks to spread civility on campus