Kaitlin Bennett has become a household name over the past two years. In 2018, the Kent state graduate published her photoshoot with her AR-10 rifle and graduation cap, marked with the quote “Come and take it.” Throughout her years at Kent, she was involved with the Libertarian media outlet Liberty Hangout, where she advocated for the school to allow students to carry weapons on campus. Their policy states that only graduates and visitors on campus can carry a weapon, so the day after Bennett graduated, she made it clear that she was going to carry on campus. She uses Twitter and the hashtag #CampusCarryNow to promote her support of the second amendment.
Bennett has gained attention for several of her tweets and ideas, including taking down feminism as well as her belief in the existence of reverse racism. Many people saw her rifle-rearing photoshoot as a symbol of her white privilege. One person commented, “If person of color was walking around campus with a gun the whole damn police station would come and shoot them in a second #WhitePrivilege.” She has also mocked gun violence victims, such as Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg.
Bennett has gained attention for several of her tweets and ideas, including taking down feminism as well as her belief in the existence of reverse racism. Many people saw her rifle-rearing photoshoot as a symbol of her white privilege. One person commented, “If person of color was walking around campus with a gun the whole damn police station would come and shoot them in a second #WhitePrivilege.” She has also mocked gun violence victims, such as Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg.
Recently, Bennett sparked controversy by going to Rutgers University to interview students on loans. She believes that students who take out loans through the government should be expected to pay them even if they do not have money to do so. As Rutgers is a historically diverse school that values culture and activism, students felt insulted that she would bring her political propaganda to campus. When they tried to explain this to her, she said “What we're seeing right now is literally the Democrats and the liberals are pushing to silence free speech — they don't want me here.” Bennett left Rutgers after students called the police on her, but not before blaming college “leftists” for inhibiting her freedom of speech.
So, now the question is this: Is hate speech protected by the first amendment? Is the first amendment working for us or against us? When political views and moral values intersect, sharing radical views can infringe on the rights of the oppressed. When Kaitlin Bennett talks openly about carrying on campus or paying student loans, she speaks from a place of privilege. For her to tell others to simply do and believe the same, she is disregarding the hardships of the oppressed and the systems of power in place that work against many Americans. This is an example of how the first amendment can serve the privileged while hurting the oppressed. Can a country with a history like America’s truly serve all people under the first amendment?
Hi Hannah!
ReplyDeleteI think you make a really good point here at the end of your post that for Bennett to want others to believe the same things she does, she is disregarding those in places of lesser privilege and who have gone through hardships that she has possibly not gone through, as well. To me, that is one of the biggest issues with what she says and does. It is frustrating, however, because she does make a point in that she should be allowed to state her opinion, even when many people disagree. I think that there are many issies concerning the first amendment that are not discussed, and it is at least helpful that Bennett's presence is causing more people, especially young people, to engage in politics and make their voices heard - I know my Twitter, feed, for one, it getting bombarded with people commenting on Bennett's actions, so I'm sure millions of other users are experiencing the same, too.
Great post, Hannah. I particularly like the end question that you bring up: can a country with a history like America’s truly serve all people under the first amendment?
ReplyDeleteIt's such a complex question because I think that the answer isn't as clear cut as a full yes or no. My personal belief is that no, America can't serve all of its citizens under the first amendment because, like you mention in the post, not everyone has the same level of privilege as one another. I think it's safe to say that a white, straight man has a more successful time speaking his mind than a black woman or a Latinx person, and wouldn't suffer the consequences that the latter might. It's especially poignant when examining all the ways that America stifles certain people's access to free speech (such as voter suppression or banned books in schools). But, America also has one of the most lax laws on free speech, so the privileged get away with saying "yes, everyone has the right to free speech!" while ignoring all of the issues and not fixing them.
Great way to incorporate the overarching question of privilege and how it affects free speech with a current viewpoint!
I cannot say I was familiar with the Kaitlin Bennett story before this post, but now that I've read it I'm surprised I hadn't. It seems strange a "diverse school, that values culture and activism" would be insulted that she spread her "political propaganda" when that's what activists do, they push for change using propaganda. People create art or protects/movements with agendas or through particular perspectives in hopes others will come to agree with their views and this is propaganda. It seems as though the students at the university just did not like her form of propaganda even though she waited until she was graduated so that she would not be breaking any policies. I don't think she needed to bring such a big gun though; she could have easily expressed her support for the second amendment by having a holstered hand gun. I can understand carrying such a large gun could have caused some anxiety for people, but she seems to be expressing her support for the second amendment just as others may create art with uncomfortable images to create a reaction and bring awareness to an issue. Miss Bennett is expressing her freedom of speech in a way others do not seem to want to hear or allow. She may be speaking from a white privileged stance, but if there was a person of a different ethnicity advocating open-carry would the people have noted their ethnicity? Must a person's ethnicity be included when that is not the message they are trying to spread?
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the nature of Bennett's views, she did not (so far as I can tell) violate federal law or Rutgers University's policies by interviewing students. While I find some aspects of her approach to interacting with others tactless, I am not convinced that Bennett deserved to have the police called on her.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, I'm disturbed by the attitude that the involvement of the police suggests, especially when paired with Gallagher's belief that "We can no longer tolerate this kind of discourse. We should no longer tolerate it even from our own friends." While I might otherwise view the police presence to Bennett as an immature (but basically harmless) prank, Gallagher's view of opposing perspectives and discourse itself as intolerable seemed to suggest that some view differing opinions (at least when related to a few subjects) as a sign of immutable, definite, inexpungable wickedness in another.
I have seen many articles posted about Miss Bennett, lot's of bashing of her on twitter and she deserves some of it but I do feel that she makes an interested case. I feel that while it's important for people to showcase their ability to speak what they feel. I feel she is another one of those people who does it more to give herself a sense of popularity compared to actually caring about the issues at hand. She is a huge supporter of the NRA. Great, there is nothing wrong with that. She thinks campuses should allow students to carry weapons, again this is fine, that's her opinion. But from looking into her work, she focuses on talking to people who are supporting the same ideas and doesn't really give the other side any room to speak. I think that if you decide to go about making a chance in the way that she does, she has made herself a target and she shouldn't be using it to create a fame or try to push for endorsements.
ReplyDeleteAll of that aside, hate speech is protected and people should be allowed to say what they want. But please have respect for people who don't agree with your ideas.
Great post!
ReplyDeleteI enjoy watching her videos because she is so irritating and it is entertaining. I really like when she gets proven wrong with facts, but she just ignores them anyway. I don't get why she goes to colleges when she doesn't even listen to the students. She is just there to get people to bend to her opinion without even considering theirs at all. She went to a gay pride march and tried to talk about the negative side to gay marriage. Like, how could she expect anyone to agree with her in that environment where they are celebrating gay love. When she is hated on by students, she sees that as well "I'm remaining calm which means I'm the right one because I don't resort to hate" but she does, she just does it in a calmer manner. She has the right to say whatever she wants, but she doesn't have the right to negate other people's thoughts and see herself as the only person to be right ever.