IN A LEAD editorial earlier this month, ("Flyering blues," Feb. 4) The Cavalier Daily denounced flyering by Hoos Against the Single Sanction and Students for the Preservation of Honor after both groups plastered Grounds with handbills championing their respective causes. The editorial claimed that "these often uninformative, often vitriolic and often misleading printouts threaten to harm the integrity of a legitimate debate." But while informed, reasoned discourse is a noble goal, no one at the University ought to suppress or discredit simple, rhetorical dialogue. With elections beginning this week and campaigning already in full swing, our community, and most importantly our media outlets, should embrace even the most caustic diatribes.
Today, few dispute the merits of free, open debate. Universities especially champion the marketplace of ideas. Yet despite a professed conviction in the intellectual and social value of uncensored discourse, many individuals and institutions hold that some contentious claims have no place in free speech. Debate deemed offensive or disparaging is often barred.
Similarly, some argue that participants in "legitimate debate" must meet certain standards. Judging some positions to be unsubstantiated or overly acerbic, these arbiters of discourse seek to qualify open dialogue in hopes of achieving a higher level of intellectual exchange.
But while the spirit of this idea is well intentioned, it carries with it dangerous and counterproductive implications. First, any kind of limitations on discourse are worrisome.
If any authority or ideological trend attempts to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable dialogue, it runs the risk of allowing doctrinaire bias to censor unpopular opinion. Further, condemning some forms of discourse can erect barriers preventing community members from engaging in debate.
While flyers are ugly in appearance and often crass in content, the simple fact that any anonymous member of the community can post them and make waves with little more than a ream of colored paper and a clever catchphrase validates their existence. When we frown upon popular media we run the risk of discrediting an easily available means of dissent.
Not only are "rhetorical devices" like flyers easy to produce, opening the public forum to the community at large, they are similarly easy to see. Most students do not have time to attend comprehensive debates or read lengthy position statements regarding candidates for student office or upcoming referenda. But a simple, brash flyer can alert a wide section of the community to an issue of great interest.
While comprehensive, informed debate is always the goal of a free, discursive community, no marketplace of ideas can thrive without rhetoric, invective and passionate participation. These elements of public dialogue, however vitriolic, are the catalysts of deeper debate. Without them, few would take interest in the goings-on of any community, and even fewer would get involved.
Just as The Cavalier Daily should reconsider its castigation of mass rhetoric on Grounds, media institutions in general ought to remember that controversial columns, pointed editorials and especially passionate letters play a related role. Not every act of public speech must be deliberate or reserved. While publications often take considerable flak for publishing contentious material, such content is the explosive lifeblood of a healthy, free community.
Over the next two weeks the University will scrutinize a host of important issues. There will be comprehensive dialogue as well as finger-pointing and caustic exchange.While we should all strive to support and engage in intelligent, reasoned dialogue, we must also remember not to disdain or destroy any mode of discourse -- serious or sophomoric.
Nick Chapin's column appears Tuesdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at nchapin@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days 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 | April 25, 2024Instead 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.
