Response to “Free Expression Tunnel blocked to fight racism”

After reading the Technician article regarding the racist slurs in our Free Expression Tunnel, I must say that I am very upset. Hate speech is not free speech and hate speech must be prohibited.

However, having said that, I cannot condone the actions taken by the students who protested the slurs, nor can I say I’m thrilled with Thomas Stafford’s proposal of placing a “moratorium on speech.”

While I am not a constitutional lawyer, I do believe that the wording in the U.S. Constitution regarding free speech makes prohibiting or abridging the free exercise of speech, well, unconstitutional. A “moratorium on speech,” even for a week, sounds dangerously similar to an abridgement of free speech. Even though N.C. State is, by some, considered a technical school, we have an active community of graffiti artists at our school. To punish these young men and women who dedicate so much time and effort to their craft because of the actions of a few boneheads is the true crime, in my eyes.

We have cameras posted at both entrances to the Free Expression Tunnel, put in place to deter and help identify hate-spewing spray painters, so why can we not use that technology to focus on the people behind the racial slurs instead of this proposed blanket of oppression covering our entire community? If the cameras are not helping us to find the criminals responsible for the hate speech, then why have the devices in place at all?

To students who protested the remarks by blocking access to the tunnel, I say, “Congratulations.” You have given the creeps who painted the slurs exactly what they wanted, recognition and uproar. Growing up as a white male, I cannot begin to understand the frustrations felt by those who were offended by the racial slurs. However, growing up in rural eastern North Carolina has, unfortunately, given me some insight into the thought process of the type of person who would spray paint racist remarks. In my opinion, I think this was done in large part to get a rise out of the black community and cause a ruckus, which indeed it did, Google News returned roughly 175 related news articles at the time of this writing. I point to Salena Boston’s experience in Bio class, where some students were curious as to how many people the slurs offended.

While I want the University to go after the people responsible, I don’t think that students linking arms and closing off access to the tunnel is the best response. The tunnel is a major passageway on campus and especially important because it is handicap accessible. Blocking the tunnel to protest the slurs is an inappropriate response to an inappropriate action because it punishes people who had nothing to do with the action by restricting their ability to move around campus.

Now, I don’t know for certain, but I’d imagine the average lifespan of a tunnel painting is around a day or so. Anything that gets painted there can just as easily be removed. Instead of causing such a commotion, just grab some paint and freely express your disapproval of racial slurring by painting over it and then move on with your day. We can’t change the mindset of the people responsible for this, but we can change how we react to such bigotry. Be the bigger person and say, “That word doesn’t offend me because that word doesn’t represent me, my heritage or my aspirations.” By denying racists the fuel they need to continue their fires, we ensure that our future is one of racial equality.

I am proud of the University and of the students for standing up against racism, but I caution them to be aware their own actions in the process. Prohibiting free speech, freedom of movement and giving the people behind the slurs reason to do it again is not the way to win this battle.

Richard Evans

junior, economics