ON THE Friday following my little-noticed March 20 column, "Phantoms of Racism," some anonymous fliers went up on the colonnades outside Bryan Hall that took issue with my stance on race relations at the University. They also attacked Kimberly Liu, a fellow columnist whose March 1 column, "Taking color out of the equation," also dealt with race.
While the fliers upset a few people here at The Cavalier Daily, I'm not among the angry ones. Rather, I applaud the fliers and I encourage everyone to anonymously criticize any column or columnist in public any time they want. Whether the fliers in question should have been posted and whether they are anything but senseless drivel are two very different questions with two very different answers. While the word drivel doesn't begin to describe the fliers' inanity, no one should be upset that they were posted.
|
The two main arguments against the posting of the fliers have both been unimpressive. The first accuses the fliers' authors of cowardice because they attacked specific columnists without signing their names to their handiwork. The second points out that the fliers unfairly associate the views of columnists with The Cavalier Daily. The members of the Managing Board often disagree with me, and it is understandable that they might become annoyed when people attribute my own less than bashful opinions to the newspaper.
Although both main anti-flier arguments are valid, they fail to justify the claim that the fliers shouldn't have been posted. Even worse, thinking about whether the fliers should have been posted takes the focus off the fuzzy message the fliers attempted to convey in the first place. Everyone is better served if we stay focused on the issues at the heart of the race debate.
So instead of bickering over whether or not the University would have been better off without hearing the fliers' message, let's instead talk about the messages' merits.
One flier offered this suggestion to passersby: "Have an opinion about black Hoos? Then join The Cavalier Daily Opinion section. No experience necessary." Though this statement highlights the race of Liu and I, it curiously makes no mention of our arguments. It expresses anger that a white or Asian person would dare to write about race, yet it points out no flaws in our thinking. This isn't to say Liu's or my arguments are flawless, but the idea that the furtherance of racial equality should be left to any one race plainly is ridiculous. Curing our nation of the ills of racism will require the participation of everyone, regardless of skin color.
Encouragingly, another flier momentarily ventured away from personally attacking columnists and classified Liu's and my arguments as "unsubstantiated." This is a step in the right direction, as it at least focuses on the issues. The next step would be to identify which arguments are unsubstantiated and to explain why. Maybe the authors didn't feel the need to substantiate their claims, or perhaps their printer cartridge was running low on ink. Either way, for future reference, when anonymously criticizing, it will be more effective to provide reasons or evidence to accompany outlandish statements.
Another amusing flier asked, in a fashion as loud and ridiculous as the neon paper it was printed on, "Pop Quiz: What day did racism die?" The authors of this flier were obviously of the opinion that either Liu or I had written that racism is dead, or that we ourselves are racist. It's as if they forgot to read Liu's work and mine before they decided to attack it. In fact, both Liu and I stated clearly in our columns that racism disturbingly remains alive and strong today, and that our approach to combating it has grown stagnant and needs some re-examination. It is possible that some people were angered by my assertion that racial equality has come a long way in the last half century. Perhaps they think less of the civil rights movement's effectiveness than I do. The truth is that no columnist at The Cavalier Daily has claimed or even implied recently that racism is dead. But maybe the fliers' authors felt that a little white lie could do nothing but strengthen their case.
The fact that a few citizens are confused about facts, wrong on issues and unwilling or afraid to attribute their names to their pitiful efforts at activism is no reason for their ideas not to be released publicly. It's better for these ideas to come out into the open than for them to remain locked away in the befuddled minds of their creators, where they may lurk untouched by the light of public scrutiny. The beauty of free speech lies in the ability of the public to evaluate an abundance of viewpoints, no matter how ridiculous and misleading individual ones might be. Put the issues on the table and, in a free and educated society, the truth eventually will outweigh all the mounds of rhetorical nonsense that have an annoying tendency to pile up.
So if anyone would like in the future to contribute to these ever-swelling mounds instead of writing a reasoned response, I give you my blessing. Nonsensical attacks against columns and columnists not only generate publicity for us, but they also make us look good by comparison. In short, even ridiculous information in the public domain is better than no information. As anyone can see from the neon fliers hanging on my wall, I've learned to stop worrying and love free speech.
(Anthony Dick is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
