THE IDEA of free speech and expression is one of the most cherished and controversial freedoms we share as Americans. This idea has recently been challenged both by larger events in the world -- in the form of the Danish cartoon controversy which gripped both the Middle East and the Western world -- and right here within our University community. As already expounded upon in an Opinion column last Thursday, ("A Lesson in Free Speech," April 20) Prashanth Parameswaran commented on the fallacies in tactics implemented by Mark Hopke and the Queer Student Union. While the debate in the methods of free speech are ages-old by our current generation, what we seem to have forgotten amidst this controversy is the fact that free speech is based upon a mutual understanding of tolerance. Without such tolerance, free speech cannot exist in any of the forms that we as Americans enjoy today.
Parameswaran was indeed correct in concluding that we "should accept [the] legitimacy" of even the forms of speech that are hateful or intolerant. Where he was not correct, however, was in unabashedly attacking such expression as inherently wrong, as he did when he called such messages part of the "uninformed minority." The QSU stooped to this same level in the e-mail campaign which helped to spark the controversy, even asserting that anti-gay signs such as that which Hopke implemented "should not be socially acceptable in our University community."
How can a single sign expressing one student's beliefs be "socially unacceptable" if an entire campaign launched against such a student and attacking him or her is not? Such hypocrisy in its purest form is nothing short of intolerance against a single set of beliefs. Just as we should allowstudents to openly express their sexuality, so should we allow students to display their homophobia. For that matter, any attempt at the suppression of peaceful expression should be that which is deemed "socially unacceptable," rather than the message itself.
No form of expression should ever be unacceptable to society, if only because its own whims and beliefs are subject to change, as history has often shown. Gays declaring that homophobia is unacceptable is tantamount to a Democrat saying that of a Republican, or of a Christian saying so to a Muslim or a Jew. At one point any of the groups may have been the "uninformed minority" compared to the other, but changes in society dictated they become the prevalent belief or ideology. However, while each is assuredly trying to protect their respective beliefs on occasion, they cannot, and should not, try to suppress others for having the opposite point of view.
Blake Wilding, one of the contacts for the press release which began the free speech controversy last week, argued in an exchange that "intolerance of my inherent qualities should not be condoned by society." However, free speech is nothing if not condoning all peaceful forms of intolerance. Just as it is our right to form our own opinions, it is our right to stick up for them in the face of others, which often leads to disagreement if not outright intolerance. Such a proposition is not to suggest that intolerance is inherently benign, because it is not. While "agreeing to disagree" may only lead to self-segregation, that is still better than the hostility that would ensue if society were to embrace one set of controversial beliefs outright over another that is equally as prevalent.
We here at the University unfortunately have much bigger problems than those suggested by the controversy over the "Gay? Fine By Me" campaign. This is still a place where, for example, students must still endure hateful, targeted taunting in public, as the hate crimes of only last fall have evidenced. Also not uncommon is the sight of a car's passengers randomly harassing students for seemingly nothing more than walking down the sidewalk, something which even this author has experienced firsthand. These are the forms of hatred which our society should not tolerate, rather than focus on simple matters of free speech. As soon as we realize that all opinions are equally valid, so long as they are peaceful, may we confront the real issues.
Alex Hannagan is a third year in the College.
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 | 4 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.
