During former President Obama’s keynote address at the University of Illinois in 2018, he stated, “The answer to speech that offends us is more speech, not enforced silence.” Unfortunately, I consistently observe the latter occurring in our ornery political climate. With the recent presidential election eliciting more vitriol, our University, community, and country truly face an unprecedented societal conflict. As individuals, we are particularly reminded of this grim reality when disagreements arise in our own lives with classmates, friends, and even family.
The following article is provided by our friends at The Jefferson Council, describing an incident that took place two weeks ago involving a close friend of mine.
Hat’s Off to UVA Student for Keeping His Hat On
Simon Goldstein, a fourth-year computer science major at the University of Virginia, grew up in a non-religious family. His father’s family was Jewish and his mother’s background was Christian, but they didn’t practice their ancestral faiths beyond celebrating Hannukah and Christmas. As he got older, some Christian friends challenged him to think about his religious beliefs. A friend took him to church, he began reading the Bible, and he came to believe that Jesus was the son of God. Today, Goldstein attends a Baptist Church in Charlottesville.
Not long ago, he spotted a cap on X (Twitter) that said, “Make America Christian Again,” which he saw as a play on “Make America Great Again,” and he bought it.
“I like that message,” he says. “I found the hat humorous. But seriously, I would like America to return to how it was in the past” as a mostly Christian nation. He’s politically conservative, but he’s not a so-called “Christian nationalist.” He doesn’t believe in imposing his views on anyone. He’s just hoping for a great awakening. “I’m not telling anyone to leave or convert or die. But it would be my hope for everyone to become Christian.”
This fall Goldstein began wearing the cap to class and around the Grounds. Not everyone saw the humor in it. Indeed, on October 24, he received an email from Nicole Thompson, senior compliance director for UVA’s office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights (OECR).
Wrote Thompson:
Our office recently received a report about you, and I write to schedule a Zoom call with you to discuss the report. This call is not disciplinary in nature, nor is it part of a formal EOCR investigative process. The goal of this informal conversation is to discuss the concerns that were reported and provide you an opportunity to share your perspective or any information and ask questions.
Goldstein had no idea what to expect.
When he hopped onto the Zoom call with Thompson, she told him that someone from his political science class had reported him — UVA has a “Just Report It” system where people can file anonymous complaints of bias, discrimination and harassment — for wearing the cap.
“She asked me questions about why I got the hat, why I chose to wear it, and if I could see how people may perceive that message negatively,” he recalls. “I answered that I found it funny and support it as a Christian, and that I can see how people may find it offensive, but I do not decide what I wear based on if others may be offended by it.”
In concluding the call, Thompson asked him, now that he saw how the cap could be perceived negatively, did he plan on making any changes?
“I took this as a suggestion in the gentlest way possible that I should remove the hat,” he said, “but I informed [her] that I had no regrets and plan on continuing to wear the hat.”
The OECR officer was not belligerent or threatening. Indeed, Goldstein described her as “nice.”
But he found the incident troubling. Knowing that he had every right to wear a cap expressing his religious belief, the OECR should have closed the case up front.
Ironically, the office in charge of protecting people from harassment on the basis of religion subjected Goldstein to a 20-minute Zoom call and applied mild pressure to stop expressing his Christian view.
“I find it highly unlikely that such a meeting would occur if I reported a student for chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ and spreading similar genocidal messaging, or if I reported a student for wearing apparel supporting gay pride,” he says. “Those are out of bounds, but intimidating the Christian student is perfectly acceptable in today’s world. Sadly, this is where we stand, but I will not be intimidated, and I will not back down. Jesus will return, and it is my hope that all repent and believe.”
He’s gotten some weird looks since he began wearing the cap, Goldstein says, but only one person, a woman in one of his classes, has said anything to him. She asked him to take it off because she found it offensive.
“I said no.”
Last year President Jim Ryan established a task force on religious diversity and belonging to look into the history of discrimination against religious minorities, Jews and Muslims in particular. Bias against Christians in a secular university culture was assumed not to be an issue. But Christians are not exempt from hostile words and actions. According to a student survey in 2020, 8% of students identifying as Christian said they had personally experienced harassment or discrimination regarding their spiritual beliefs compared to 11% for Muslims and 13% for Jews.
On the other hand, of all religious groups, Christians were most likely to respond (91%) that “students of my religious beliefs are respected on this campus,” surpassed only by agnostic/atheists at 96%. Jews and Muslims (at 78% and 77% respectively) were the least likely to perceive their religion as respected.
Also, according to the report, Christian students were among the least likely to report incidents of religious bias.
Whether the number of reported incidents is an accurate reflection of reality, however, is an open question. Members of groups regarded as “marginalized” religious minorities may be more sensitive to “micro-aggressions” and more likely to report them, while Christians, especially evangelical Protestant Christians, are so accustomed to expressions of disapproval in larger society that they shrug off perceived slights and insults.
(The surge in 2023-24 incidents involving Jews is undoubtedly related to the heightened anti-Israel rhetoric by pro-Palestinian protesters.)
Truth be told, having the OECR sicced on him doesn’t much bother Goldstein. It’s been two weeks since the Zoom call, and he hasn’t heard back from the Office. He expects the incident will blow over, and he will continue standing up for his principles.
“It’s not the biggest thing in the world. Other people have gone through way worse,” he says. But the double standards do rankle.
My Thoughts:
As I said before, Simon and I are good friends. I knew his intentions behind wearing the hat were not to insight violence or hatred. Witnessing this entire situation unfold during an already contentious election caused me to reflect on the state of discourse in our country. By no means did I conjure up anything groundbreaking— no new revelation for healing such entrenched divisions, but I would like to offer some insight on how we can better navigate disagreement over sensitive topics, namely politics and religion.
The Jefferson Independent has several aspirations, the most important of which is our commitment to accountability and viewpoint diversity. The most rewarding aspect of my time with TJI is getting to work with talented writers who embody journalistic excellence in their articles. Moreover, they all have unique opinions that they feel empowered to share. It is this empowerment that is a sign of a healthy and free press, one that can unabatedly seek the truth. It is this empowerment that underpins our great American experiment.
So, when I see my friend get reported for a contentious, yet simple and harmless expression of his beliefs, I am disappointed. It doesn’t matter what message the hat was supporting; if you are so vehemently moved by someone’s political statement, it is far more beneficial to dialogue with them instead of filing a report. Every conversation I’ve had with someone I disagree with has always revealed shared visions of peace, prosperity, and security, no matter the context. We engage in politics to create an orderly and tranquil society. We contemplate religion and philosophy to seek meaning and truth. When you construct those who may have entirely different predispositions, beliefs, and concerns as enemies, we fail as a society to recognize the shared desire for benevolence.
I promised I would give you some practical guidance on how to healthily disagree. It goes back to the adage of “putting yourself in their shoes.” While it may sound simple, if you ask yourself whether you actually do it, the answer is often no. We should also always assume the best intentions of the party or person with whom we disagree. Furthermore, be open to the idea you may learn a new opinion, fact, or perspective that allows you to better understand the opposing side and even reflect on your own positions.
There is no light without dark. In the same vein, there is no appreciation for the ability to disagree without the all-to-painful reminders of what oppression and censorship entail. We students are extremely lucky to attend such a prestigious liberal arts institution that emphasizes the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and analytical skills. I urge you to remember that as the semester’s end looms in the distance. Do not report things that offend you. Seek out disagreement. Find people who challenge your beliefs and speak with them, not as combatants, but as human beings.
The opinions expressed within this piece represent the views of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jefferson Independent.
Great piece! We need more dialogue and less division in today’s political climate, and especially on our college campuses. Our future lies in civil discourse. Like you said, we all want the same things: peace and prosperity.