A university is a safe space from physical violence. And why would I be ok with someone advocating that I or my family be deported? Because that's what just happened to these students.
I'm also not saying you have to be OK with the message - just that rather than trying to shut down the people making statements, they should be engaged and challenged.
And perhaps you should allow that speech the same way I wouldn't be okay with Hillaray 2016 who spearheaded the effort to create the situation in Syria (along with Lybia Egypt and Iraq) which has caused the deaths of over 500k people and tens of millions of homeless.
If one of the presidential contenders doesn't make you safe, I would think Hillary would be first to mind with bloody deadly wars in the wake of her only tenure in real power.
Since the First Amendment only restricts the actions of the federal (and by extension the state and local) government, it only applies to universities run by the government (e.g., state universities). Private universities like Emory are not bound by the First Amendment any more than a shopping mall is. However, there are other ways to pressure universities to allow freedom of speech: exposing their actions in the press, alumni cutting off financial support, etc.
I think you're right about Hillary, but what does that have to do with this conversation?
If you or your family is here illegally then you do so with the understanding that you might be deported. There's certainly good arguments to be made that our immigration policies need to be changed, but "beef up border security and deport current illegals" is absolutely a valid proposal and one that's supported by a large number of both American and Mexican nationals (who are hardly fond of Nicaraguan immigrants). It may not be the view I personally hold but adding ridiculous hyperbole and unbridled emotion into your stance makes it hard to take seriously.
And where on earth did you get "physical violence" from?
Edit: forgot his campaign manager http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/breitbart-s-michelle-fie...
It is my understanding the breitbart woman was proven to be lying about what actually happened by multiple videos showing the "incident". I hadn't even heard about it before today but even a cursory google gave me this (admittedly poorly done) video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NoMPxomjiw so maybe you shouldn't spread that.
She said she almost fell but kept her balance. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/03/10/3276486/
Edit: that's why "aiding and abetting" or "conspiracy to" commit crimes is also a crime.
Chalking 'Trump 2016' is a decidedly non-violent action.
You might find it offensive, distasteful, disrespectful, or any number of other adjectives, but it is not in any way violent.
I say this as someone who does not support Donald Trump or his policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_...
but, like you probably said (in your head), he wasn't convicted, so he must have been innocent... not quite the way others saw it though...
Whoever did this is personally threatening students on campus. If they were just supporting Trump I would have a lot less problem with this.
Which is not what Trump said by the way. As I mentioned in another post I don't support Trump (and neither am I even able to vote in US elections) and I have no horse in this race, but if you're going to criticise him, at least do it for things he said, not for exaggerations of what you think he said.
> Whoever did this is personally threatening students on campus
No, what happened was entirely impersonal, and not threatening in any way unless you perform a large amount of mental and linguistic gymnastics.
I fail to see how chalking 'trump 2016' is 'clearly aimed at Latino students'?
Latinos are not the only group he has marginalised, but even then maybe it was written by someone who supports some other policies of his or by someone who wants to see some fresh names in politics beyond just Clinton/Bush.
From what I can tell many of Trump's supporters don't like all his policies either. What they like is that he is unlike any other politician running for office and that he has enough of his own money that his words aren't bought and paid for by others.
In debating you learn you cannot make a convincing argument without thoroughly understanding your opponents arguments and lines of reasoning.
If you think the only reason people want to vote for Trump is because they are rascist and intend for violence to be committed against certain groups in society, then you will fail to convince most of them not to vote for Trump, because that is not what they want or believe.
Are you saying you don't feel safe walking around the US knowing that ICE or CBP deport people?