JULIA MONTAG | COLUMN

N

ewton’s 
third 
law 
of 
motion states every action 
has an equal and opposite 
reaction. It implies forces always 
exist in pairs. For example, if you 
attempt to push a car uphill in 
neutral, you can feel it pushing 
back against you with the same 
force in the opposite direction. 
Ever jump off a pool raft? I bet 
as you lurched forward, the raft 
recoiled 
backwards. 
Action, 
reaction.
President 
Donald 
Trump, 
along with the University of 
Michigan 
and 
several 
of 
its 
student organizations, seem to be 
overlooking this simple, axiomatic 
doctrine. Last week, the Trump 
administration 
joined 
national 
advocacy group Speech First in its 
lawsuit against the school’s bias 
response policy, claiming the rules 
wrongly supervise free speech 
and limit conservative student 
expression on campus.
One event that comes to mind 
occurred earlier this academic 
year when several U-M students 
slapped 
on 
the 
firetruck-red, 
infamous “Make America Great 
Again” hats, which I’ve come to 
understand 
as 
an 
unspecified 
invitation—a symbol that suggests, 
“Yes, I support Trump and I 
understand you may not, but I 
invite you to engage in a political 
debate, one in which neither of us 
will win because both of us have 
rigid, deep-rooted political and 
social views.” So these students 
squatted in the Diag, the sunny 
square of Central Campus that 
is used as a shortcut to most 
destinations, 
and 
expressed 
their right allocated in the First 
Amendment, the privilege of free 
speech.
They exuded their unspoken yet 
implicit political opinions, which 
were later clarified by New York 
Times writer Anemona Hartocollis 
to include “that abortion after 12 
weeks is murder; that the welfare 
system is being abused; that 
there should be a border wall and 
that the wage gap between men 
and women is based on women’s 
choices, not discrimination.” It’s as 
if they did research on today’s most 
contentious debates and put on a 
hat to declare their positions on 
the matters; they sowed the seeds 
of controversy, sat back and waited 
for them to sprout.
According to Hartocollis, at the 
end of the day, after being called 
“racist or, in one case, shoved and 

spat on, for supporting President 
Trump,” the students in question 
felt penalized for engaging in free 
speech and abused for expressing 
their views, particularly by the 
University’s Bias Response Team. 
According to the team’s website, 
it addresses “incidents that may 
reflect bias against members of the 
University community based on 
their identity.” The team became 
involved in this free speech case 
after a significant surge in incident 
reports, 
which 
represents 
an 
increase in students seeking its 
support.
The 
Bias 
Response 
Team 
defines bias as “conduct that 
discriminates, 
stereotypes, 
excludes, 
harasses 
or 
harms 
anyone in our community based 
on their identity (such as race, 
color, ethnicity, national origin, 
sex, gender identity or expression, 
sexual orientation, disability, age, 
or religion).” The Team, which is 
not unique to Michigan’s campus, 
interpreted the aforementioned 
behavior – wearing red nationalist 
hats 
and 
instigating 
political 
friction – as offensive, as “bias.” 
The hat-wearers recognized that 
these carefully worded policies 
were being misused to punish 
them for their actions; in a greater 
sense, conservative students in 
support of the hat-wearers felt 
disproportionately 
deterred 
from expressing their opinions. 
Those who experienced similar 
discouragement, 
first 
across 
the nation then on our campus, 
formed a group, eponymously 
named “Speech First.” It sued the 
University in May for violating the 
constitutional right of free speech. 
The 
lawsuit 
claims 
the 
Bias 
Response 
Team 
silences 
viewpoints, 
that 
the 
anti-
harassment 
policies 
are 
“unconstitutionally 
overbroad,” 
and “the effect of these amorphous 
prohibitions … (has a) profound 
chilling 
effect 
on 
protected 
expression.” 
As 
summarized 
by NBC writer Lucas Maiman, 
the regulations deter students 
from voicing their opinions, for 
views deemed as offensive are 
threatened with discipline from 
the Bias Response Team.
“Speech First’s members are 
afraid to voice their views out 
of fear that their speech will 
be reported to the university 
as 
‘harassment,’ 
‘bullying’ 
or 
a ‘bias incident,’” said Speech 
First President Nicole Neily in a 

statement attached to the lawsuit.
“Without the space to debate 
and argue, students won’t ever be 
forced to confront the underlying 
assumptions 
framing 
their 
worldviews,” the lawsuit states, 
quoting a New Republic article. 
The same article also claims groups 
like the Bias Response Team will 
“result in a troubling silence” on 
campuses across the nation.
Now, I believe a school has a 
certain right to protect its students, 
but a line does need to be drawn in 
order to determine the extent to 
which university involvement is 
allowed. The line may be a fine one, 
albeit a crucial one, and one whose 
threshold should be determined by 
U-M students and faculty. The U.S. 
court system outlines free speech 
as the right to use certain “words 
and phrases to convey political 
messages” and to “engage in 
symbolic speech.” As Wolverines 
and Americans, we must find a way 
to feel protected yet not monitored.
This specific event, however, 
reminds me that political discord 
is natural. Actions and reactions. 
Applying 
Newtonian 
physics, 
every 
extremely 
polarized 
statement 
yields 
one 
that 
is 
equally provocative and oppositely 
charged. 
The 
Speech 
First 
members behind this lawsuit, 
the 
ostensibly 
self-professed 
“Students A, B and C,” have their 
opinions on the gender wage gap; 
I, however, have my own, and they 
must recognize on a campus of our 
size, most beliefs are matched with 
their antitheses. I think the wage 
gap between women and men is 
not based on decisions made by the 
former, but rather, based on a long-
standing bias in our world, one that 
started centuries ago. I also believe 
one can and should say what one 
wants in the Diag, and one can 
and should fight for the right to 
do so freely. Students A, B and C 
will do this, and they will demand 
they not get harassed and spat 
upon, shoved and discriminated 
against, “bullied” for their beliefs, 
and I will do the same. I, too, will 
say what I want about abortions 
and immigration, and maybe I’ll 
publish it in The Michigan Daily; 
if I don’t shove you, I expect not 
to be shoved back. Actions and 
reactions. 

5
OPINION

Thursday, July 5, 2018
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

him, placing him squarely in 
violation of Colorado law and 
simultaneously exempting him 
from any defense contingent on 
the artistic nature of his cakes. 
 
Nor is it relevant that Phillips’ 
defense presented his beliefs 
as complex; providing same-
sex couples with cookies and 
birthday cakes, as opposed to 
wedding cakes, was considered 
by Phillips to be compatible 
with his faith because these 
goods are devoid of association 
with marriage. Much like the 
relationship between Easter 
and 
Christianity, 
or 
Yom 
Kippur and Judaism, same-
sex marriage (especially after 
its nationwide legalization) is 
such a fundamental part of an 
LGBT lifestyle that discerning 
between “same-sex wedding 
cakes” and their heterosexual 
counterparts constitutes, in 
effect, discrimination of same-
sex couples.
In light of the numerous 
merits of the case against 
Phillips, the language used 
in the court’s opinions is 
all 
the 
more 
astonishing. 
Accompanied by commentary 
that, by and large, overlooked 
Phillips’ obligation to subject 
his privately held beliefs to 
the civil rights of others, the 
decision handed down on June 
4 exemplifies the need for 
broad, statutory consideration 
of sexual orientation as a 
protected class. 
Pragmatically, this would 
relieve 
LGBT 
citizens 
from 
relying 
on 
state-
level 
protections 
from 
discrimination in public venues. 
These protections can flounder 
where present, as exemplified 
by the Masterpiece Cakeshop 
case, 
and 
enable 
severe 
injustice where absent, as is the 
case in many states. Federal 
protections, on the other hand, 
would extend to all LGBT 

Americans the assumption of 
equality, affording categorical 
protection that only a select 
few groups currently enjoy. 
Anyone 
doubtful 
of 
the legitimacy, if not the 
consequence, 
of 
these 
protections, 
could 
find 
justification for them in the 
current 
array 
of 
federally 
protected classes. From race 
and national origin to sex 
and disability, these classes 
comprise 
the 
immutable 
aspects of one’s character, 
those elements not up for 
change. Just as one does not 
choose the color of their skin, 
nor should one be forced to 
reconsider 
their 
religion, 
sexual orientation has yet to 
be proven as a matter of choice, 
and a wide body of research 
positively suggests otherwise. 
While the freedom of religion 
undoubtedly remains one of the 
most sacred and justly guarded 
protections enshrined in the 
Constitution, Phillips’ actions 
in the Masterpiece Cakeshop 
case prove unqualified for 
justification on these grounds. 
Notwithstanding the sincerity 
of his beliefs, free expression 
does 
not 
supplant 
the 
state’s obligation to combat 
the 
disruption 
caused 
by 
discrimination, as the court 
has observed multiple times 
prior and as was even cited by 
Justice Kennedy. Recognizing 
sexual 
orientation 
as 
a 
protected class acknowledges 
the principles undergirding 
existing federal protections, 
while ensuring LGBT citizens 
are not again subjected to the 
privately held, albeit genuine, 
religious beliefs of others with 
whom they share the public 
space. 

The physics of free speech

Emma Chang can be reached at 

emmacha@umich.edu

Ethan Kessler can be reached at 

ethankes@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters 
to the editor and op-eds. Letters should 
be fewer than 300 words while op-eds 
should be 550 to 850 words. Send the 
writer’s full name and University affiliation to 
emmacha@umich.edu

Protect and serve by Ethan Kessler continued below: 

