Editorial: Political discourse requires respect, not aggression

With the election less than a week away, we realize tensions are high at Pitt.

But none of the presidential candidates will benefit from violence among their supporters. And anti-Trump Pitt students who flipped over a Donald Trump campaigning table and ripped down a Trump banner outside Hillman Library this week made that very clear.

While college is meant to be a place where young people can engage in intelligent conversations and debate, there’s nothing intellectually stimulating — or particularly revolutionary — about flipping over a table and darting away or haphazardly tearing a banner from a tree branch.

In the recent past, Pitt students have actively and vocally petitioned for an inclusive and safe campus environment. Creating that space means accepting the fact that people with a spectrum of ideas and opinions will be able to express themselves and campaign freely on campus. This doesn’t mean there’s no room for debate — there is, and there should be — but as Election Day draws nearer students should make an attempt to respect each others’ safety and property, regardless of political affiliation.

Although Pitt administrators did not respond to the Trump tabling events directly, Vice Provost and Dean of Students Kenyon Bonner issued a letter reminding students of the Pitt Promise of mutual respect, civility and self-restraint and asked them to channel their energy into voting on Nov. 8.

Bonner is right. The Pitt News editorial board has challenged Trump on numerous occasions for his violent rhetoric and baseless policies — we understand why people are upset about his history of harmful comments and actions. But we’ve criticized him in an effort to enhance and engage a purposeful discourse about the candidate himself, not to personally harass or defile his supporters.

While we have said we disagree with Trump and his supporters, those students have every right to speak and campaign without the threat of harassment.

Free speech is the foundation of public discourse, protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, protests, sit-ins and strikes take more effort and produce much more effectual change than temporarily lashing out at campaigners as you walk by them on your way to class.

We should seek to understand each other through discussions, debates, organized and effectual forms of civil disobedience and asking one simple question: why?

In some of the videos, students can be seen standing across from the tables making impassioned speeches against Trump. But once those speeches shift to comments like, “You guys have no place in America,” — which one person can be seen yelling at the group on video — the protests of never-Trumpers becomes a bit self-effacing.

It’s counter-productive to criticize a political candidate for being a “fascist” and a “racist” — also shouted by anti-Trump passerby in the videos — and then immediately begin telling his supporters they don’t belong in the country. And those who oppose Trump can’t call for an inclusive, safe college community but physically attack those with views that differ from your own.

Not to mention the fact that far right outlets and talking heads — including alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos — have since used these on-tape incidents to once again paint college students as free speech-hating, intolerant children.

Degrading comments and childlike arguing doesn’t look good between presidential candidates on the debate stage, and it looks worse on Pitt’s campus. But more than the way it makes us look, we should consider the culture we’re trying to cultivate.

Pitt is a community made up of opposing views. If we can challenge without personally insulting, discuss without physically fighting and question without condemning, then we can have a truly inclusive community.