On the average American college campus, free speech can be a fickle beast. Universities play host to a multitude of backgrounds and opinions that mix together in various formats. The college student has the means — writings, protests and so on — to express his values. But should a bar be set? What can one do to combat the supposedly unwise usage of such freedoms?
We’re in the midst of an age when it’s easier than ever to represent yourself on myriad electronic platforms. Discourse is now speeding in cyberspace. Social networks and information medias make it simpler than ever to cook up an opinion. No matter how many followers or hyperlinks we ride, “posting and toasting,” (to borrow a Walt Frazier-ism) allows us to constitute our individualism and defend it from all attackers. We post where our voice can be transmitted best; consequently, we “burn the opposition” to it as swiftly and securely as possible.
College campuses are now seeing what happens when those obstreperous opinions leak out of our computers. In particular, supporters of some candidates in the presidential primaries have been causes of controversy at universities across the nation. Students at Emory, Michigan and Kansas have largely decried pro-Donald Trump and anti-immigration chalk messages appearing in their communities. Generally, some feel an “anti-diversity subtext” from these writings violates the values to which an academic institution must adhere. Reactions have been both sympathetic and scathing, both empathizing with and deriding these students.
Two Cavalier Daily articles duly responded to the controversy this week, both offering further reflections on a testy topic. The editorial board largely disarmed the severity of the issue. It argued “the [Emory University] chalkings in question are relatively innocuous” compared to more pressing dilemmas present there. Rather than focusing on these harmless provocations, “the protesters’ time would be better spent addressing social issues specific to their campus.” Overreactions to insipid jibes were not the proper responses at all.
The second piece was more critical. The writer stood askew from the editorial board and recalibrated the issue in terms of the “intimidation and vandalism” of Emory property. The issue should be interpreted through the eyes of outraged students responding to the violation of their campus, despite the outpouring of political correctness. The plucky pro-diversity, anti-Trump groups offended were likely the targets of those who chalked the cutting comments. But the issue at hand should not be overly exaggerated so as to drown the real problem: “violating private property to send an intimidatory message” to others.
Both pieces were welcome discussions of a nebulous issue: the relationship between space and speech. It’s telling that an organization like The Cavalier Daily, in physical or cyber format, acts as a medium that stimulates discourse about such social issues. If the latter article raises the dilemma of property and free speech, it is only because “spaces” like the Cavalier Daily allow for such discourse. Rather than focusing on the private, the public space allows us to acknowledge the differences.
Furthermore, though being able to speak freely is a core American right, it shouldn’t stop there. Measuring and mediating one’s privilege to do so is just as important, to stop one from mouthing off whatever comes to one’s mind. It’s thusly valuable to have platforms like this for that purpose. Opinionated individualisms, such as those originating in politics, are constantly being loosed to the collegiate winds. Sure, it’s easier (and presumably more pleasurable for the writers) to anonymously provoke people behind a piece of chalk and watch the ruckling responses roll in. Yet it only exposes the lack of dialogue — safe or unsafe — about controversial subjects like Trump or immigration. Wouldn’t that be a more desirable outcome?
Perhaps. Still, the spaces we do possess are worth holding onto for that particular purpose: to engage with opinions and perspectives belonging to others. If The Cavalier Daily and other student groups here can further that initiative, then the fear and loathing meant behind the “Trump 2016” and “Build the Wall” chalkings can be eliminated completely. Let’s exchange, in the words of Matt Taibbi, the lack of a “tolerance for discomfort” for the engagement of viewpoints that are alien to our own biases.
Sasan Mousavi is the Public Editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at publiceditor@cavalierdaily.com or on Twitter at @CDPublicEditor.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 9 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
