On Thursday, Nov. 10, a message reading “Bye Bye Latinos Hasta La Vista” was discovered on the corner of a classroom whiteboard by an Elon University faculty member, who promptly filed a notice through the university’s bias response system.
The Elon community was first officially made aware of the incident by President Leo Lambert via email, calling the message “reprehensible and directly in conflict with Elon’s values of inclusion and treating each other with dignity and respect,” and also extending special support to Hispanic/Latino students. One day later, the author of the message stepped forward, described by the Dean of Students as “a Latino student upset about the results of the election who wrote the message as a satirical commentary.”
The incident evoked strong reactions; contempt for the note and calls for acceptance were echoed throughout social media.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory, I whole-heartedly sympathize with minority groups across America who now justifiably live in fear of further societal and institutional discrimination. However, it is my view that the prevailing sentiment surrounding this incident — particularly the unwavering condemnation of the message — is more a symptom of increasing sensitivity to nuanced expression (i.e. satire) than it is a proponent of unification, and also raises a deeper question about the acceptability of satire given its potentially destructive consequences.
The first issue I have with the reaction to the message is the immediate framing of it as hate speech. If we take President Lambert’s statement, for example, there is a clear assumption of malicious intent. Virtually all news outlets and social media users also reported/shared this story with no allusion to ambiguity. Now, given the circumstances, the inclination to conclude the worst is more than understandable.
For one, acts of racism and xenophobia like what this message was initially perceived as were being perpetrated all throughout the country following the election (and still are). Moreover, the satirical nature of the message was by no means easily detectable. But I think to prosecute with certainty given the possibility of ulterior motives not only does a disservice to the alleged intent of the message, but also elicits (albeit inadvertently) unwarranted fear in the minds of the community. I think it is most sensible — though perhaps not the easiest — to comfort those offended by the message while encouraging open-mindedness regarding the intent behind it.
But to some, even in a satirical light, the message should be subject to unwavering censure. Among others on social media who have maintained their disdain of the note, the professor who originally found it expressed the reasoning behind his in an interview following the incident.
“Regardless of what its intent was, which I don't know, I told the students, 'This is s—‘“ … “Thinking about it afterwards, I don't know if it was dumb s— or if it was hateful s—. But at least it was that. It was s—.”
So the argument, it seems, is that the words themselves deserve a uniform level of disdain in any context because of the reaction to them. Surely equating the severity of an unintentionally inflammatory satirical statement with an expression of true hatred is wholly erroneous.
But I think these grievances beg a deeper question, even if the intent is purely constructive, should satirical statements be crafted to avoid potentially destructive consequences — or be crafted at all?
Jon Stewart, former host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, received much criticism for a piece of satire he featured on his show attempting to reveal the absurdity of President George W. Bush’s labeling of Iran an “axis of evil.” In this endeavor, The Daily Show sent a correspondent to Iran under the comedic guise of an American spy to interview journalists covering the elections and subsequent protests. In satirical spirit, the correspondent asked Iranian Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari to explain what made the “axis of evil” so evil.
Bahari appropriately debunked the premise, articulating the strong desire the people of Iran had for a free society and representative government — effectively serving as the punchline which revealed the ridiculousness of President Bush’s generalization. Unbeknownst to Stewart and The Daily Show, the Iranian government had been seeking to incriminate Bahari as a foreign spy himself, and used Bahari’s interview with the correspondents a piece of evidence (among several) to validate their prosecution. Government officials kept Bahari in solitary confinement for four months; though he was not found guilty, Stewart was asked if he felt any responsibility for Bahari’s arrest. “Of course I feel horrible about what happened.
But when it comes to my work, I can only control my intention”…”from there, I have zero control over what anyone does about it,” he said in an interview. Asked if said lack of control should change the way he crafts satire, Stewart replied: “Asking me to make my satire unusable for an authoritarian regime is a fool’s errand”…”It was a guy dressed in kaffiyeh, wearing sunglasses, sitting in a cafe going, ‘I’m an American spy. As such, tell me why I shouldn’t be afraid of you.’ How do you idiot-proof that segment?”
Let me be clear that in no way do I think those who construed the message in a negative light are “idiots” who needed to be “proofed.” I think most everyone, including myself, felt at least an immediate sense of disgust about what it seemed to be communicating. But Stewart's point holds weight here, in my opinion. While the degree to which the satirical nature of the message and Bahari’s interview was detectable differs pretty significantly, the consistency of principle should theoretically still stand — that is, no matter how indistinguishable the constructive intent may seem to any group of people, if the author’s work truly holds constructive intent, then the author bears no fault for any misunderstanding or offense (especially when unforeseen). In other words, who gets to dictate an objective level of indistinguishability/offense worthy of censorship?
Now I do acknowledge that the author in this case should have had more foresight with regard to the probable reaction (given the circumstances) and accordingly expressed more clearly the satirical essence. But in the mind of the author, supposedly, the message was a purposeful exaggeration of Trump’s immigration policy that sought to directly undermine the very hateful undertones the author was accused of espousing.
The way I see it, this is a classic example of balancing principle/precedent with real-world ramifications. On the one hand, a satirical statement ridiculing Trump may have seemed like a fitting way to combat the air of intolerance after the election to some, and free speech should technically allow leeway for that expression. On the flip side, I cannot fathom the potential anguish it would cause a Latino student (or anyone with regard for minorities’ unique predicament), after learning that the man who routinely criminalized and scapegoated their race is now their president-elect, to bear witness to, in its literal interpretation, a genuinely heartless taunt.
Though I’ve struggled to find a definitive verdict, I can’t find one here. I do believe there was a rush to judgement on the intent of the message, and that continuing to publicize the message as hate speech ignores the complexity of the issue. But I also believe we ought to hear and respect the legitimate feelings and concerns of those who carry baggage of persecution (both historical and present day) and who are particularly vulnerable under a Trump administration. Given that, I would urge the disciplinary officers of Elon to examine all sides of this incident in exacting reprimand on the author — there’s more nuance than meets the eye.