My Response to Conservative Student's Perspective on Controversial 'MAGA' Hat Column

I could be mistaken, but having read Austin Phelps’ article Conservative student says law school biases infringe on his right to free speech, he seems to fall within each and every aspect of the dominant culture in the United States of America. He appears to be a cisgender, straight, white (as defined by white supremacists), Christian, middle class, educated (in that he has a high school education or above) male. In other words, all of the rights, privileges and protections set forth in the United States Constitution that existed when that document was first drafted and ratified apply to him. As originally construed, he was a “person” a defined by that document. This is what is meant by “privilege,” which involves unearned rights. 

Throughout our history, members of groups not considered “persons” eligible for such rights, privileges and protections have fought for inclusion through civil rights because they aren’t entitled to equal justice under law when they are excluded from such access.

It has long been said that including members of previously excluded groups doesn’t decrease the rights of those privileged to have such access. That’s actually untrue, which is why people, such as Austin Phelps, who fall squarely within each and every aspect of the dominant culture feel discriminated against. As more and more groups of people are included, the playing field becomes more level, increasingly stripping them of their privilege, which they perceive as discrimination against them. And, the same is true regarding the perceptions of those who are members of groups that have been granted civil rights and why they often work to deny members of excluded groups from accessing them. It’s important to acknowledge this reality, which doesn’t mean agreeing that they should regain the privileges they have already been stripped of or maintain those privileges they still enjoy.

Among other things, Make America Great Again has always meant stripping away civil rights through which members of previously excluded groups have gained access to constitutional rights, privileges and protections, and denying access to those not already included. One only need to look at the policies of the Trump Administration to see that it has done and continues to do just that. And, it’s one thing to fight for access to rights, privileges and protections from which you’ve always been denied, but it’s something very different to be stripped of such things after you’ve had access. Mind you, being stripped of “privileged status” is not the same as being stripped of access to those rights, privileges and protections. One involves leveling the playing field and the other involves discrimination.

In his article Seeing Red: A professor coexists with ‘MAGA’ in the classroom, Jeffrey Omari, an African American male, shared how and why he perceives MAGA as “an undeniable symbol of white supremacy and hatred toward certain nonwhite groups.” He spoke of the unearned rights of people such as Austin Phelps and how MAGA is about their desire to regain privileges that have been watered down by creating a more just and equal society.

Since only certain men were entitled to Constitutional rights, privileges and protections at the time of its creation, one could say that our Founding Fathers held misogynistic beliefs. Slavery was legal in each of the thirteen states that were part of the Union at the time the Constitution was created. African-Americans were considered three-fifths of a person and also denied access to the rights, privileges and protections set forth therein. As such, it’s clear that our Founding Fathers held white supremacist beliefs.

The fact that they held such beliefs doesn’t mean those beliefs weren’t biased, oppressive, and discriminatory. For goodness sake, the Declaration of Independence was created only eleven years before the Constitution and it sets for an entire list of oppressions by Britain because of a lack of consent of the governed. Groups of people don’t typically consent to being excluded from access to Constitutional rights, privileges and protections. Therefore, members of those groups have been oppressed, and the oppressors have been those who are included and who work to exclude others and/or strip them of inclusions they’ve already gained. This is why MAGA is perceived as "an undeniable symbol of white supremacy and hatred toward certain nonwhite groups,” among others. This is also why Trump has been endorsed by and has the undying support of white supremacist and other hate groups and their members.

Phelps’ response reflected a complete lack of emotional intelligence, the foundation of which is emotional self-awareness.

He compared donning MAGA messaging to a sign on a door that says “all are welcome here.” He's a third year law student and he claims to believe the following: "Trump’s slogan was adopted by his conservative base as a goals statement: that we want to make America great again, for everyone." He makes a false equivalence between those who are inclusive and those (like himself) who are exclusive.

Among other things, he wants "conservative" Justices on the Supreme Court in order to exclude and oppress people who aren't like himself. He said it very clearly as follows: "Supporting Trump is nothing more than hoping for a change for the better. If nothing else, two Supreme Court seats filled with conservative posteriors is reason enough for a conservative to support Trump and express that support by wearing a MAGA hat."

With the exception of the period from Justice Antonin Scalia’s death on February 13, 2016 and Neil Gorsuch replacing him on April 10, 2017, the United States Supreme Court has been consistently dominated by Republican appointees since 1969. So, when Phelps and others want “conservatives” on the bench, they are referring to “conservatives” as that term is defined today - those holding white supremacist and misogynistic beliefs (which includes sexual prejudice against LGBTQ people).

I very seriously doubt that Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others who fought and prevailed before the United States Supreme Court in making this country less oppressed by white supremacist, misogynistic and other prejudicial and discriminatory beliefs would have prevailed had those cases been heard by the Supreme Court today, based upon its current composition. And, Ginsburg herself is a member of that court. Mind you, Marshall prevailed before a Court comprised of all white males and Ginsburg prevailed before a Court comprised entirely of males.

Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy was a conservative Justice appointed by a Republican President. However, “conservatives” didn’t like him because his beliefs aren't "conservative" enough for them, as is reflected in his voting record. Many “conservatives” don’t like Chief Justice John Roberts because, among other things, his were the deciding votes to uphold the Affordable Care Act and that caused the 2020 census not to include the citizenship question.

From my observation, when conservatives comment on the need to “establish conservative Justices on the Supreme Court” and conservative judges on other courts, they are referring to judges and Justices who are ideologically “stuck” because they have demonstrated a lack of well-developed and well-balanced emotional intelligence. Such judges and Justices view judging as calling balls and strikes, as Chief Justice Roberts says. And, they call balls and strikes based upon their sincerely held belief that “their truth” is “the truth,” and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and possibly, immoral. The information they allow themselves to actually hear and consider is constrained because of their lack of well-developed and well-balanced emotional intelligence. Meanwhile, the more constrained the information heard and considered, the more impaired the critical thinking, assuming critical thinking is actually taking place.

Conservatives want judges and Justices whose empathy is limited to those who look, think and act as they do. However, judges and Justices dispense legal justice and are supposed to be impartial, which actually requires that they have the humility to understand that unless we’re talking about objective facts in which something can be proven true or false, “their truth” is not necessarily “the truth.”

Meanwhile, knowing what "establishing conservative Justices on the Supreme Court” means, Phelps said the following:

“We are at a time in American history where diversity is to be celebrated, where racial equality has made tremendous strides and where interracial understanding is high. The 20th century was marred by issues of inequality and suppression of rights on the basis of race. The champions of the civil rights movement, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, fought to ensure that all people, regardless of race, had equal opportunity and the right to be heard. Omari and other progressive activists pursue an objective that contrasts with the very purpose of the civil rights movement: suppressing the speech of those who are different from them."

Phelps formed his “individualized notion of what is right and wrong” based upon his background and life experiences. According to his own commentary, he doesn’t believe that “the educational setting” is where you form such notions because he’s clearly tone deaf as a result of his lack of emotional self-awareness. And, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he stated that “the educational setting is … a training ground where we sharpen our ability to debate critical societal issues.”

Debate is where two or more people each try and convince third parties that they are right and the others are wrong. Mind you, convincing third parties you’re right doesn’t actually mean you’re right. He also used the word “indoctrination,” which is the process of causing people to build impenetrable walls which prevent them from hearing and considering information that challenges their “sincerely-held beliefs.” I’m afraid he was indoctrinated long before entering post-secondary education. He’s only interested in debating – a word he used twice in his article. Learning requires challenging one’s beliefs, not insisting those beliefs are right. If he were interested in actually hearing and considering other people’s perspectives and challenging his beliefs, he wouldn’t have phrased things the way he did.

Can Phelps sincerely believe that supporting policies designed to exclude and oppress anyone who isn't a cisgender straight white (as defined by white supremacists) Christian male is not an attack on those being excluded and oppressed by such policies?

Phelps is correct that not all Trump supporters have “malice in their hearts or minds;” however, that’s only because of the way in which bias works. Because of the lenses through which he views the world, he may not think he holds white supremacist, anti-Semitic, or bigoted beliefs, but that’s not how those who are being excluded, oppressed and marginalized by policies consistent with his beliefs see things.

As social science researcher Brene’ Brown explains, “[In the United States,] the whiter, more Judeo-Christian, straighter, middle class, educated we are, the more likely it is that we were told that how we see the world is actually the world and how other people see the world is another unreal version of the world – that our view is the world…. Perspective taking is normally taught or modeled by parents. The more your perspective is in line with the dominant culture, the less you were probably taught about perspective taking.”

What Brown is referring to is a lack of emotional self-awareness. The perspective-taking is what’s needed both to develop that self-awareness and to better understand those who differ from ourselves – empathy (toward those who look, act, and think differently from ourselves).

Brown explains that when you take the perspective of other people, “you believe people’s stories, you believe people’s experiences as they tell them to you…. You don’t run that through your lenses. You understand that the world that they see through their lens is as real, honest and truthful as the world we see through our lens. There are four skills that ladder up to empathy: non-judgment, perspective-taking, recognizing emotion, and communicating back emotion. If you can’t perspective-take, we can’t practice empathy because that’s the minute we say, ‘Oh, that’s a terrible story, but that’s not how I see it.’ It’s okay to have an opinion, but you can’t dismiss what people experience and talk about as truth.”

On June 20, 2018, a program on Restoring Civility in an Overheated Society took place at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution. Managing Director Sukhsimranjit Singh stated, “To be aware of your culture, you have to get out of it.” International mediators Tracy Allen and Eric Galton, known for their work on “Restoring Civil Discourse” added, “The way we change our minds on moral issues is by interacting with others, especially because we are not good at seeking evidence that contradicts our beliefs.” That’s how you gain emotional self-awareness. Higher levels of emotional self-awareness has been shown to help make us more understanding and less judgmental of others.

Phelps is a prime example of the oppressor playing the victim and accusing the victims of his oppression of being the oppressors.

And, Phelps mentioned that conservative values “range from lowering taxes across all income classes, improving the capitalist market economy, establishing conservative justices on the Supreme Court, protecting Second Amendment rights and investing in critical infrastructure.”

As of February 13, 2019, the federal debt was $22 trillion. Trump cut taxes (for some) and increased them for others (such as myself). Therefore, he didn’t lower taxes across all income classes. Furthermore, as of February 20, 2019, he had already increased the debt by $2 trillion because of his “tax cut.” Building a wall is not “investing in critical infrastructure.” What “critical infrastructure” has Trump invested in? Furthermore, would the money to fund such an investment come from further increasing the debt, considering conservative values include “lowering taxes across all income classes”?

And, as Dr. Brown says, “Nothing is sustainable without boundaries.” Throughout history, we have been reminded that with rights come corresponding responsibilities. Those responsibilities are boundaries, otherwise known as limits. Regulations are boundaries. What conservatives such as Phelps seem to want is unfettered rights for members of privileged groups and with no corresponding responsibilities. “Protecting Second Amendment rights” means ensuring that no additional regulations infringe on those rights. “Improving the capitalist market economy” means eliminating or watering down governmental regulation.

It was incredibly depressing and not at all surprising to read Phelps’ article. It exemplifies the well documented decline in emotional intelligence in our society in recent decades, which is why we have a need to restore civility in an overheated society.