A

s a Muslim, I 
quickly 
learned 

that the claims 
of this being an 

inclusive campus were not 
as earnest as I originally 
anticipated. 
Every 
year 

I find myself expecting 
instances 
of 
hate, 
and 

thus far I have never been 
proven wrong.

For many students with 

minority 
identities 
on 

campus, issues like the 
recent racist vandalism in 
West Quad Residence Hall 
are simply expected. This 
is an issue demonstrated 
over 
and 
over 
at 
the 

University 
of 
Michigan, 

as the administration and 
faculty alike often ignore 
the recurring acts of hate. 
It is only a question of 
when these incidents will 
occur, rather than if they 
will occur. Yet the question 
of who can talk about these 
issues is one that often halts 
conversations that could 
create any real change.

I am lucky that I feel 

supported in writing about 
my experiences on campus, 
but I also know this can be 
a challenge itself. Although 
I do receive a lot of support, 
I also get a lot of concern 
about attaching my name 
to such strong opinions 
and putting a spotlight on 
myself. I feel, though, that 
the spotlight is already 
on me in a way — as 
everywhere I walk my hijab 
reveals that I am Muslim — 
so I might as well use it for 
something.

As a future educator, 

I also know publicizing 
personal opinions can be 
a problem when searching 
for, 
and 
keeping, 
jobs. 

Teachers 
are 
generally 

discouraged from sharing 
too many of their opinions 
with their students, unless, 
of course, most parents 
share that same opinion. 

So though many newer 
teachers 
have 
in-depth 

knowledge on social issues, 
the discouragement from 
helping 
society 
move 

forward is one that a lot of 
teachers have to navigate, 
when teachers can often be 

one of the most important 
catalysts of social change. 
Similarly, 
issues 
of 

diversity are not always 
directly spoken about in 
class and people are often 
not expected to understand 
nuances of diversity or 

appropriate speech until 
they are in the workplace.

This 
university 
only 

serves as a microcosm of the 
country as a whole, where 
the line between acceptable 
and unacceptable speech 
begins to blur, and people 
are taking advantage of 
the 
opportunity 
on 
all 

sides. 
As 
Americans 
in 

2017 take to the streets 
with torches in the name 
of white nationalism and 
Nazi slogans, the question 
of where the line is seems 
to disappear.

The campus debates over 

how to handle incidents 
of 
hatred 
reflect 
the 

greater 
national 
debate 

on 
how 
such 
incidents 

should be handled. The 
debates surrounding Colin 
Kaepernick 
kneeling 
for 

the national anthem only 
intensified after President 
Donald 
Trump 
publicly 

stated anyone that who 
kneels 
for 
the 
national 

anthem in the NFL should 
be fired. In the aftermath 
of 
this 
statement, 
the 

response from NFL players, 
NBA players and fans alike 
began to break another 
barrier — one that often 
keeps professional athletes 
silent.

The distinction between 

“hate speech” and other 
forms of “allowable” speech 
being pushed for by some 
campus voices is a specific 
point of contention. There 
is no concrete definition of 
“hate speech” in American 
case law that can legally 
be curtailed, though such a 
distinction exists in many 
European 
legal 
systems. 

And yet, it is only when 
hate 
speech 
is 
publicly 

condemned and restricted 
in various ways that society 
moves forward as a whole.

In the same way that 

condemning 
practices 

like 
blackface 
or 
Nazi 

propaganda 
undoubtedly 

moves society forward, hate 
speech should be classified 
as wrong. But this is often 
not the case. People often 
use the guise of free speech 
to justify verbal harassment 
and hate speech without 
realizing that there is a 
moral logic behind many 
of the laws that govern 
society. 
To 
claim 
that 

there 
is 
no 
underlying 

morality or to trust that 
people 
understand 
hate 

speech using their own 
judgements is unrealistic. 
The question of why speech 
is the exception to the rule 
remains unanswered, and 
when certain instances of 
hate speech go from being 
acceptable to unacceptable 
only happens over a great 
deal of time.

Rather than have clear 

sets of rules defining hate 
speech, this keeps incidents 
of hate on campus and in 
the United States as a whole 
“debatable.”

Year after year I see the 

same incidents on campus 
and across America. I see 
glimmers of hope as people 
come together to condemn 
hate, 
but 
the 
mental 

barriers have to be broken 
if there can be any hope to 
move forward. My identity 
as a Muslim and a future 
educator encourage me to 
protest hatred on campus 
and in society.

When 
the 
ideal 

expectation is for people to 
correct one another, how 
is this supposed to happen 
when so many are asked 
to be silent? As a minority, 
Muslim, 
and 
future 

educator, I struggle with 
this question each time I 
choose to speak up even 
when some might find my 
opinions to create a biased 
lens. And yet it seems that 
some 
issues 
are 
worth 

kneeling for. 

3B
Wednesday, September 27, 2017 // The Statement 

Let’s talk about it: Kneeling for justice

BY RABAB JAFRI, COLUMNIST

ILLUSTRATION BY EMILY HARDIE

