Hindu students in particular may often feel like they are under scrutiny from our students and staff. In the UCSC news article “East Remote parking lot graffiti”, the tone and diction of this article strongly suggests that the swastika is a hate symbol: “Regrettably, anti-Semitic graffiti continues to be posted in different campus areas.” (Public Affairs) They also claim that “Regrettably, anti-Semitic graffiti continues to be posted in different campus areas.” This is not just the bias of the author, this article reflects the University’s attitude towards this symbol, and how they define this symbol. Understandably, it’s reasonable to think that this instance was an act of anti-Jew sentiment because it was done the day before Hanukkah, however take the case of any other swastika graffiti. Other instances of this graffiti is also automatically warranted as hate speech. By assuming this symbol holds malicious intent, it places social and discriminatory pressure on students who want to represent the symbol in a religiously empowering way. Of course, graffiti is in no way acceptable on campus, however this article is to explain the ways UCSC has placed pressure on it’s Indian Hindu and Buddhist students by placing assuming this definition on a once beloved symbol. The Hindu and Bengali people also happen to name their children after the swastika due to its originally genial meaning. Children named after it may feel oppressed and even scared to travel abroad due to stigma surrounding it. Even people who aren’t directly representing the symbol face backlash from vocal ‘activists’. A certain newspaper article tells the incidence in which a stall owner at an urban flea market faced repercussions from an angry group of protestors because his stall seemingly exhibited an antique Navajo blanket with a swastika on it. (Kane) This in fact was a “whirling
Hindu students in particular may often feel like they are under scrutiny from our students and staff. In the UCSC news article “East Remote parking lot graffiti”, the tone and diction of this article strongly suggests that the swastika is a hate symbol: “Regrettably, anti-Semitic graffiti continues to be posted in different campus areas.” (Public Affairs) They also claim that “Regrettably, anti-Semitic graffiti continues to be posted in different campus areas.” This is not just the bias of the author, this article reflects the University’s attitude towards this symbol, and how they define this symbol. Understandably, it’s reasonable to think that this instance was an act of anti-Jew sentiment because it was done the day before Hanukkah, however take the case of any other swastika graffiti. Other instances of this graffiti is also automatically warranted as hate speech. By assuming this symbol holds malicious intent, it places social and discriminatory pressure on students who want to represent the symbol in a religiously empowering way. Of course, graffiti is in no way acceptable on campus, however this article is to explain the ways UCSC has placed pressure on it’s Indian Hindu and Buddhist students by placing assuming this definition on a once beloved symbol. The Hindu and Bengali people also happen to name their children after the swastika due to its originally genial meaning. Children named after it may feel oppressed and even scared to travel abroad due to stigma surrounding it. Even people who aren’t directly representing the symbol face backlash from vocal ‘activists’. A certain newspaper article tells the incidence in which a stall owner at an urban flea market faced repercussions from an angry group of protestors because his stall seemingly exhibited an antique Navajo blanket with a swastika on it. (Kane) This in fact was a “whirling