In the second-to-last issue, I wrote an article about the Jussie Smollett controversy; specifically, his faking a hate crime. He is now facing 16 felony charges.* I wrote about a fantasy—that America is ridden with hate and racism—that is prominent in the left and how it has driven people to fake hate crimes on themselves. That article took the broader perspective of our nation; this one, however, is going to bring that view down to the EMU perspective.

There was a great example of the fantasy on campus last semester when N.T. Wright came to speak. Wright is a British New Testament scholar who was asked to come to EMU and who does not support homosexual marriage. The Safe Space group on campus responded by protesting at the convocation he spoke at; they also wrote an opinion article in this newspaper, which is going to be the main focus of this article.

First off, let’s spend some time talking about Wright and what he believes about homosexual marriage. It seems his argument is that marriage is a Judeo-Christian institution that derives its meaning directly from God. In this view, a man and woman are recognized as one under God. He argues that under the Judeo-Christian definition, it is impossible for two men or two women to be considered married.

He also argues that to consider homosexual marriage “marriage,” you have to change its definition. He protests this change for several reasons. Is this argument discriminating, oppressive, or even homophobic? No, especially not when you consider the fact that the concept of marriage originated in the Judeo-Christian faith.

My argument would be the same as Wright’s, but with this added: if you want to go to the county court and sign a legally binding document that says that you and your gay/ lesbian partner are legally together, then I do not care. I actually support that, because I think that in America people should have that freedom. The issue comes when outsiders to the faith enter it and try to change its definitions under the argument of discrimination. There needs to be a distinction, similar to the one made about separation of church and state.

So with all of that behind us, where exactly is the fantasy being played out? In the article, the writers said that Wright’s presence was oppressive and silencing and that the “climate we have experienced is still, to put it simply, offensive and silencing.”

The mere fact that your article was printed proves the counter-argument, besides the protest, alternative events, and bent-over-backwards administration. I remember the apologies from EMU and campus ministries. There was no silencing going on, there was no oppression, no discrimination, and no one’s safety was threatened by him being here and speaking.

Yet to back their claims, the writers use strawman arguments. A great example of this is toward the end. They say in regards to Wright not wanting to speak on homosexual marriage while here, but rather to stay on the topic he was asked to talk about, “[Wright] is silencing the queer experience, and that will not stand with us nor with many students at EMU who have allied with us against the misogynistic, heteronormative privilege he represents.”

People embroiled in the fantasy like to use these strawman descriptions of people to demonize them. This is where the “punch a Nazi” thing came from. In their own minds, they turn people with perfectly reasonable thoughts and beliefs into Nazis as a way to justify committing offenses against them. This is not to say that there are not people who do not have reasonable thoughts or beliefs, but that it tends to be the decent people who are targeted.

Green Mountain College is a great example of this. I would recommend taking a look into what happened there and where this fantasy can lead. Also, this is not to say that I believe that it could happen here; I was very happy to see the protest stay peaceful throughout.

The writers, of course, have a solution to their fantasy which is one of the most damning things in their article: “We understand that alienating people goes against EMU’s values. However, when it comes to the safety of students, shouldn’t that be the priority?” If you disagree with them, you are threatening their safety somehow, and thus must be silenced. The writers do not outright say it, but they, like many, are insinuating that for just opposing them, you are assaulting them. That is why they talk about their safety.

They also say, “Our academic freedom policy allows space for controversial matters. However, the policy was never intended to be applied to speakers on campus.” This is the danger of letting these fantasies be played out.

The writers would rather silence their opposition than engage with them, let alone hear them out. I have been writing for the last year about being open and talking with people who you disagree with and not only that, but to search them out. Try to challenge your beliefs and be willing to change.

*Editors’ note: All charges against Smollett were dropped after the writing of this article.