The Free Expression Tunnel, which officially opened as a service tunnel in the 1930s, has served as N.C. State’s sounding board for student ideas and student organization announcements for more than 40 years. The tunnel has been the place on campus where students can say what they want and express how the feel, no matter the topic. Two times in the last six months, separate incidents have raised serious discussion about the use of the tunnel and its purpose. In November 2008, following the election of Barack Obama, four students painted racially charged messages threatening Obama, forcing the Secret Service to investigate and the University to take action. In January, following the men’s basketball contest against UNC-Chapel Hill, the tunnel once again came under scrutiny when someone defaced a mural dedicated to late women’s basketball coach Kay Yow. While recent incidents have caused some to question the purpose of the tunnel, Tom Stafford, vice chancellor for Student Affairs, said he believes the tunnel is just as important as it has been since the 1960s despite the recent incidents. “The tunnel is obviously a place where people can express feelings on political and social issues and pretty much anything,” he said. “Unfortunately, it also becomes a place where people use offensive and sometimes very hateful language.”Stafford said it is the responsibility of students and faculty to monitor what goes on in the Free Expression Tunnel. “The best way to respond to speech that is offensive or hateful is more speech,” he said. “More speech that indicates that what was put in there is not appropriate.”In the most recent incidents, there have been two responses with regard to removing offensive comments. In November, University officials painted the entire tunnel white the morning after the election. In January, Student Government representatives fixed the Kay Yow mural by painting over the offensive remarks. Stafford also said the tunnel may now be viewed differently by students, faculty and staff because of what has occurred recently. “I really believe people have a different way of looking at the Free Expression Tunnel, especially after the events in November,” he said.Ches McDowell, a sophomore in political science, said the fundemental purpose of the tunnel should remain the same regardless of what happens. “It’s a place where students should be able to go and say what they want to say without fear of retribution from the University but with fear of retributution from the students,” he said. “Students have the right and responsibility to paint over what they don’t like. Everybody can paint and that right has to be preserved.”  As for how the campus has responded, Stafford said he hopes people can learn from the events and use that knowlege in the future. “Everytime something horrible happens there is always an opportunity to look for some good that can come out of it,” he said. “I really believe that about these two incidents.”McDowell said the response to the two incidents, especially the one in November, should be kept on campus. “We’re losing the whole purpose of the Free Expression Tunnel because of publicity and third parties getting involved,” he said. “When other people get involved, it takes away the meaning. Students can vent what they want to say, and then people can paint over what they don’t like.”As for the future of the tunnel, it remains to be seen if the University will take any permanent action to limit students. Stafford said no matter how offensive language in the Free Expression Tunnel is, students are protected by the First Amendment. “Offensive language ii language protected under the First Amendment,” he said. “There is a better understanding that when something like that happens in the tunnel that the best response is to speak out against it. When we see something we don’t like, then we need to respond to it.”