The Carrier Editorial reflects a consensus of the editorial board.
Our nation is at a crossroads. While many celebrate, equal numbers look with fear to the next four years. Tense energy has been crackling for a long while now and this election provided many with matches.
On our own campus, we have seen the effects of polarization most recently on the sidewalks leading to McAllister and Krannert. While the editorial board does not condone the messages of the initial chalkings, we are fierce proponents of free speech, whatever the message.
As a country, we can’t be selective about which speech we allow. The first amendment, a pillar of our democracy, guarantees free speech for everyone. Berry College on the other hand is a private institution, and when students agree to live and learn here, they agree to a certain social contract.
The 2016-17 Viking Code sets limits on freedom of expression as it adversely affects other members of the Berry community in order to foster a welcoming learning environment. The code excludes “the right to intentionally and maliciously aggravate, intimidate, ridicule, or humiliate another person” in its definition of freedom of expression.
Many students voiced their fears associated with the original chalkings that included pointed and hurtful messages, but the college chose not to censor free speech, with the exception of any vulgar statements. However, a statement expressing a plan of action was not released until students had already taken the more hurtful messages into their own hands. In this way, many felt that Berry didn’t uphold the speech code and integrity standards found within our Viking Code.
The college handbook defines harassment as “acts which are intended to insult or stigmatize an individual or group of individuals on the basis of perceived or actual personal characteristics.” Under this definition, hateful comments targeted towards specific groups, such as minorities, that make individuals feel unsafe and stigmatized, should have repercussions.
However, there is a tricky line to be walked between supporting first amendment rights and using them as an excuse to disregard the hateful nature of messages that target individuals and groups.
In the statement released by President Stephen Briggs, he stated “an open conversation that is self-correcting and self-improving is surely more appropriate than an imposed administrative censure, particularly on the eve of a national election.”
Under the first amendment, you have the right to speak in the face of oppression. You have the right to match the voices of hate, and shout so loud you overcome them. If you don’t want to shout, write. Use your voice and the power of free speech that this country has granted. Speech is the most powerful tool that you possess in the face of fear, violence and oppression.
Fight speech with more speech. Now, more than ever, we need to engage in conversation rather than attempt to silence dissenting voices. In a social media saturated world, the majority of our news is filtered and condensed.
It is up to us as a community and as individuals to make our voices heard and keep this hateful rhetoric from defining our campus.
“A choir is made up of many voices, including yours and mine,” award-winning author Vera Nazarian once wrote. “Don’t let a loud few determine the nature of the sound. It makes for poor harmony and diminishes the song.”