Since the 1960s, the University has been tolerant of the students’ right to free speech in the Free Expression Tunnel. The tunnel is a way students can express themselves visually and allow open forum for other students to do with it what they want. In light of the recent actions of a group of student protestors, the University is looking at an option they should never even consider: not allowing painting in the Free Expression Tunnel.

While closing the tunnel has only been discussed, even considering as an option is unacceptable. It is the fundamental rights of students the University is targeting with this idea, not the location. The students of this University come from all walks of life, racially, sexually, culturally, etc. There is no way all of these groups can agree about everything or hold the same beliefs, and it is impossible for the University administration to hope to shelter the campus from this fact.

Hate speech is defined as speech “that expresses hatred, contempt, ridicule, or threats toward a specific group or class of people,” according to the International Encyclopedia of Communication, and it is still protected by the First Amendment. While socially offensive, the painting found in the tunnel on Sunday is protected by the First Amendment because it is expressing an opinion. The protestors have the right to assemble and the right to free speech, but the University administration cannot allow them the right to free speech and then deny the rest of the campus because of what the group chooses to say.

Closing the Free Expression Tunnel isn’t the right answer. The thoughts and opinions expressed in the offensive picture should not be perceived by the University as those of the entire student body. His or her expression, however, should inspire the thought of something much greater. A culture change is necessary to deal with these issues, and this must start by a change in the way these actions are dealt with by the University administration.