It was a surreal conversation with topics completely out of place in a free society, yet it was representative of the times which will soon be upon Americans.
The University of Illinois at Chicago ( UIC ) is sometimes seen an epicenter of social justice and fierce activism, and its students generally voice their opinions with vibrant fervor.
Yet, those who gathered in an auditorium at UIC's Student Center East building Nov. 29 to listen and participate in a discussion concerning Walls or Bridges: How Do We Make Sense of This Political Moment? did so with restrained solemnity as if they were still endeavoring to comprehend the kind of society which gave rise to Donald Trump's Electoral College win and how to both answer and bridle the fanatical racism and savage hatred that came with it.
Associate Director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyer's Guild Paromita Shah, Associate Professor of Gender, Women's and Asian American Studies and founding Director of the UIC Arab American Cultural Center Nadine Naber alongside WBEZ global affairs/news program Worldview Senior Producer Steve Bynum put that society and the tremendous challenges those who embrace freedom, equity and equality will face after Jan. 20, 2017 into a sobering, harsh context.
UIC Professor of Political Science and Latin American and Latino Studies and Director of the Latin American and Latino Studies Department Amalia Pallares alongside UIC Professor in Gender and Women's Studies and the History Department and Chair of the Gender and Women's Studies program Jennifer Brier served as moderators as the audience grappled for a way to meet those challenges head-on.
"The [Wall or Bridges] question mark suggests 'what do we do as an academic community, as an ethical community?'" UIC Professor in Gender and Women's Studies, African American Studies and the History and Director of the Social Justice Initiative Barbara Ransby wondered in her opening remarks. "Are we prepared to be a sanctuary for students and colleagues who are going to be vulnerable? Out answer to that would be 'yes.' Are we going to push back against the kind of anti-intellectualism that we see so rampant, not to mention the xenophobia, racism and sexism that has been so predominant in this political season?"
"Trump is going to be inheriting a massive deportation machine that has been building quite vigorously over the past 15 years," Shah said. "41,000 people are in detention at any given time. [The Department of Homeland Security ( DHS )] has become the agency with the most armed federal agents in the United States and it is now in the hands of a president who does not know how to use it and his rhetoric has been painful, racist and nationalist."
"We have anti-immigrant, white supremacists who are now going to be running White House policy," she added. "We have a Republican House and Senate. That means we don't have any safeguards. What I am really worried about is the threat of normalization that is happening right now."
Naber listed the programs already in place which could be significantly heightened under Trump's administration.
The National Security Entry-Exit Registry System ( NSEERS ) enacted by the George W. Bush administration was a screening and tracking program for men entering the United States on a visa from Muslim majority countries and North Korea.
"There were penalties if you failed to register," Naber said. "Hundreds of people were arrested without justification even when they voluntarily did register. Not one single person screened was ever convicted of terrorism-related charges. 14,000 of them were deported for voluntarily complying with the program."
Although President Barack Obama discontinued the program when he took office, he did not dismantle it.
Naber also addressed heightened photo, video and interpersonal surveillance that has "always started with students."
"In [New York City] it started with Muslim Student Associations," she said. "The New York City Police Department intelligence divisions engaged in profiling of Muslim religious and community leaders, mosques, student associations, organizations, businesses and individuals for pervasive surveillance."
She noted that decisions were made on "indicators of radicalization" that included "anyone who harbors Islamic beliefs, wearing traditional Islamic clothing, abstaining from alcohol and becoming involved in social activism."
In covering a post-Trump America, Bynum challenged journalists who work under the "premise that America is based on democratic laws and principals, that we are now a post-racial America."
"The system we live under is that we have a voice, but not every voice carries the same weight," he said. "Only the elite get to decide the course of our lives. Unfortunately there is this altar called 'objectivity' and, for too long, we have sacrificed principal, human beings, ethics and empathy for the sake of objectivity under the assumption that all voices are equal. But we know that is not true because there has been an obsession with race lately."
"The way that it is covered in media is that race is a Black problem," he added. "Race has never been a Black problem. Race always has been a white problem. It is utilized as a tool to prevent us from looking at the heart of what America is about: class. If you look at the things that [Trump] says, they are right along the line with what we have seen in the last 200 years."
Bynum asserted that the media has a "terror of saying 'racist', 'bigot.'"
"We use the term 'alt-right,'" he said. "It is a neo-fascist, white supremacist, white power movement. Just this week, NPR decided that they would now begin to call the alt-right a white nationalist movement. There was much debate. There was a time when journalists lived amongst us and went through the same things we went through. They had empathy. Now the people who cover our politicians, the people who are charged with guarding our democracy, live in gated communities and send their children to private schools."
"Fear can determine the laws of the land," he added.
