It has troubled me greatly what has happened in these last few months in regard to The Insurgent. I am not worried that the issue was published, or that the ASUO had to take a stand, or even that some people were offended. What troubles me is that we as Americans tend to hide behind our rights, especially the freedom of speech. While freedom of speech is guaranteed to everyone, we tend these days to take advantage of that right.
Why do Americans tend to go out of their way to offend people? Why does Fred Phelps take groups of his followers to funerals of dead soldiers to tout a message to that soldier’s family that the reason that its son or daughter died was because Americans condone homosexuality? Why do people come to the University comparing abortion to genocide while showing horrible pictures? Why do we publish pictures of Jesus Christ naked on a cross with an erection? One can argue because it is their right and another can argue that they are trying to promote differing viewpoints in the attempt to raise consciousness about an issue. Both might be right and valid, but the third and most-likely case is that they are looking for a reaction, which all of the above groups have been successful in obtaining.
The true value of a message is not in the reaction, but in the delivery. I can sit here and say, “I hate the Chess club” (I don’t have any hatred for them in reality), or I can say the Chess Club has done x, y and z that concerns and worries me. Which message will be better received and presents the possibility for a dialogue? The “I hate the Chess Club” will get a reaction, sure, but will it open a discussion that will be productive? I think not. We are in an institution of higher education, the University. We have moved past the high school crap, saying, “I hate this,” or, “This person sucks because of this.” It is time for grown-up conversations where reactions are not the goal but dialogues are. When we get to the point when we publish meaningful and insightful publications (not making a value judgment on the current publications) we can truly start to expand our conversations, challenge our personal biases and beliefs and not be bound to our gut reaction. Once we can move past the idea of “I just wanna piss some people off, ’cause they are stupid” to “I want to pose this idea so we can raise awareness of this issue,” we can move from the kids’ table and sit with the grown ups.
University President Dave Frohnmayer was correct in stating that groups should use tact and maturity in how they discuss controversial issues. I would expand on that by having the programs ask, “What is the purpose of this article – to piss people off or to raise awareness of an issue?” If it is the first part, I would say grow up, but if it is the second, I would say proceed with caution: the caution being how your message will be received. Will it just incite anger, or will it incite dialogue that will be productive, meaningful and honorable to your program?
David L. Goward is the ASUO Programs Administrator