Rewind nearly 40 years. In 1977 the modern American version of the Nazi party sought to hold a political rally in Marquette Park in Chicago. Permission was denied when the city authorities banned political demonstrations at the park. The organization's leadership then decided they would conduct a march through Skokie, Illinois, a town with a large Jewish population that included many Holocaust survivors. The subsequent legal battle focused on the wearing of the swastika, the Nazi symbol, and whether doing so was protected by the First Amendment and therefore could not be prohibited.
Local and state courts enjoined the political demonstration and the march, and the case went to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered the state courts to hold a hearing focused on the First Amendment issues. Those proceedings initially prohibited the use of the swastika, but the Illinois Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the wearing of the symbol was protected and did not constitute "fighting words."
The Skokie case became famous for its protection of provocative expression. It illustrates just how far we are willing to go, in the United States, to support the principle that the First Amendment was intended to protect political expression, even when it is exceptionally unpopular or despicable.
Fast forward once more to 2016, when Donald Trump is a candidate for president. His candidacy attracts supporters with whom some of his darkest rhetoric resonates powerfully. His detractors observe that he repeatedly expresses ideas that are nativistic, xenophobic, jingoistic, misogynistic, homophobic, and racist. Immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, women, and the LGBT community find his appeal to a segment of the American public to be a shocking reflection of a broad and deep streak of intolerance that remains in American society despite decades of effort to enhance tolerance and acceptance of groups that constitute the "other" in our culture.
The United States has one of the most heterogeneous societies on earth, and this has long been a source of pride, as people have come here seeking not only economic opportunity but religious freedom and the tolerance for people of varied backgrounds for which this nation has been greatly admired.
At any rally by supporters of the Trump candidacy for the nation's highest office, speech and conduct displaying intolerance of all sorts, the antithesis of our spirit of inclusiveness, have been very much in evidence. People attending the rallies who have differing views, even if they are quiet and their differing views are suggested only by something they are wearing (such as an article of clothing bearing the name or symbol of another candidate) or even by the color of their skin (non-white) have sometimes been heckled or threatened by Trump's supporters and escorted from the premises by law enforcement officers, ostensibly for the purpose of preventing trouble. Trump himself has repeatedly endorsed such conduct: "Get him out!" he demands, referring to any detractor who might be in attendance at one of his rallies.
One could predict that in a city with the racial and ethnic diversity of Chicago, a Trump rally might draw a sizable number of protestors. Thus, the selection of a site for the rally should be made with some consideration of that possibility.
On the other hand, perhaps there is an intent to be provocative. If so, one might choose a location full of people most likely to find Trump's views and the sentiments and inclinations of his supporters to be especially disagreeable.
Among the possibilities suggesting themselves as most likely to fit that bill is the University of Illinois at Chicago. This is an institution of higher learning noted for diversity and inclusiveness in the selection of students for admission. Here is a college campus on which the diversity of color of skin, ancestry and national origin, ethnic background, and gender and sexual orientation is perhaps greater than just about any other in the country. Aside from its educational mission, this is a university that exists to welcome students of diverse backgrounds. Thus, this is a university whose community is most likely to find the prospect of Trump as a political leader for this nation truly appalling and the views and behavior of his supporters a shocking representation of the deep-rooted intolerance that persists among a segment of the populace.
So how might one view the selection of the University of Illinois at Chicago as a site for a Trump campaign rally?
"Asking for trouble" comes to mind.
And trouble, not surprisingly, ensued. Protestors recruited or encouraged by various groups that promote diversity and inclusiveness and that are, in their philosophy, reactionary against the reactionary in American political life, turned out by the thousands.
There was much disturbance of the peace. The rally was cancelled. The protestors cheered. Trump's supporters cried foul and strenuously objected to intolerance of their intolerance. Irony abounded as protestors who believe passionately in First Amendment rights of all sorts - speech, press, assembly, religious belief, practice and expression - clearly felt that a Trump rally on this site simply went too far and was intended to be provocative in the most disruptive and potentially dangerous manner.
Among the protestors were many supporters of another presidential candidate, a man whose history has been one of championing the civil rights and seeking to better the economic lot of minorities of all sorts. The supporters of Bernie Sanders made no secret of their political preference in this election year. While the Sanders campaign had nothing to do with his supporters' decisions to protest the holding of the Trump rally on the UIC campus, Sanders himself found no reason to criticize or apologize for their participation.
Trump personally responded to the participation by Sanders' supporters, calling on Sanders to condemn their participation. In doing so, rather than maintaining any sort of decorum that might have made it possible to take seriously his expression of dismay over the intolerance of those who preach tolerance, Trump ridiculed Sanders as a "communist" and mocked him by saying "Bernie" with the drawn-out, sing-song intonation of a schoolyard bully.
Condemnation of Trump and his pronouncements on what it will take to "make America great again" has come from all corners. Rather than softening any of his rhetoric, Trump has mostly doubled down on his expressions of antipathy for all who are not part of white Christian America. He has been marginalized by most of the leadership of the party whose presidential nomination he seeks, despite his standing in the polls and his garnering of votes on primary election days. This has led many party leaders to look, as an alternative, to Ted Cruz - a candidate who, as a member of the United States Senate, is liked by virtually none of his colleagues in that body. What could be a more powerful indication of the contempt in which Trump is held by the GOP establishment?
Many apparently believe Trump's unpopularity with the political establishment is evidence of his merit as an outsider who can go to Washington, DC and shake things up.
It is very clear that Trump wants to shake things up, and that he is very good at that, and that he doesn't care how many people he offends, or how deeply, in so doing. Trump has succeeded in marginalizing himself more than any of his opponents could ever succeed in marginalizing him. One might even think he is intent upon proving that he has no place in a civil society - certainly not in the one we have striven to build in the United States.
The publication founded by that intellectual luminary of the modern American conservative movement, William F. Buckley - the magazine National Review - devoted an entire issue recently to making the case "Against Trump."
The decision to hold a campaign rally on the campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago, with the full knowledge that it would be provocative to the point of being incendiary - and apparently seeking that outcome - is further evidence that all thinking Americans who believe in the broad social values this great nation represents should, together, stand Against Trump.
