by Riley Blankenship

Tension filled the air Aug. 25 as President Donald Trump’s recent executive order titled “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag,” which directs federal prosecutors to pursue charges against individuals who burn the American flag, has sparked yet another national debate on free speech—one that also resonates at Greensboro College. This new order also directs the secretaries of both State and Homeland Security, along with the Attorney General, to turn down and revoke immigration benefits to individuals who are undocumented and burn the flag, which highlights this administration’s ongoing focus on undocumented citizens.

In June 1989, the Supreme Court made a 5-4 historic ruling in Texas v. Johnson stating that the burning of the U.S. flag is seen as free speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. With Donald Trump’s new executive order, this contradicts the 1989 ruling greatly. Some might be wondering how this will affect them and, moreover, how this executive order will affect our nation as a whole. Scholars as well as political scientists have argued this executive order goes way beyond just burning the U.S. flag and sets precedent for an even further attack on free speech and the First Amendment.

The Collegian had the opportunity to interview Dr. Allison Palmadessa, history professor and chair of the History Department. She emphasized that symbolic protests have long shaped the American political conversation, ranging from black armbands during the conflict in Vietnam to demonstrations at Kent State in 1970.

“We often think of symbolic protests as these huge events that draw national media presence, but symbolic protests can be smaller—and still be effective,” Palmadessa said.

She outlined Trump’s executive order as being more symbolic than truly powerful, highlighting that executive orders are often meant to be seen as political tools rather than strictly to enforce the law.

The Collegian also spoke with Dr. Altan Atamer, the new political science professor at Greensboro College. Atamer emphasized that presidents have historically tested constitutional limits; however, with Trump’s approach it is unique because of the fast pace and the number of executive orders piling up.

“Trump’s latest efforts are not just an isolated example but moreover point toward a worrying trend that has come to characterize his second presidency,” Atamer said. “He has largely been able to skirt around the judicial branch, which already leans in a conservative direction.”

Atamer added that even if the executive order is struck down, Trump can still use it politically. “Framing his executive orders in this way, even if unsuccessful, would appeal to voters who have been receptive to his populist messaging.”

Both Palmadessa and Atamer tie the controversial issue back to Greensboro College. Atamer noted that international students have faced revocations of their visas for simply voicing criticisms, and some departments have even lost funding over their research topics.

Palmadessa urges students to see themselves as part of the larger debate. “What I hope students can take from past events is that their voice matters,” she said. “If voices are not raised, if we do not utilize the First Amendment, then we cannot expect change.”

Students have also expressed their own opinions regarding the executive order. The Collegian had the opportunity to speak with sophomore Arthur Colon. He stated that the current executive order Trump signed should not have been signed, further believing that burning of the American flag is protected under free speech and should not be infringed upon.

“I feel like it’s a symbol, it’s an expression of speech and protected under the First Amendment, so I do not see how it hurts anyone,” Colon said.

As the debate unfolds, Greensboro College students remain at the center of the conversation. Whether through protest, discussion, or other forms of expression, student voices continue to add to the larger question of what free speech means in America today.