If you thought that what some called hate speech was limited to the sidewalks of Louisiana State University, you were wrong. Hate speech — in much more direct forms — appears on the sidewalks of universities across the United States. However, some universities, like Minnesota State University-Moorhead and the University of Colorado, are taking action to limit chalk writing on campus.
For something that fades away as people walk across it and is completely eradicated after rainfall, it seems pretty asinine to make rules trying to outlaw or regulate this relatively harmless form of student expression. Last spring, an anonymous “chalker” left anti-Semitic writing on the University of Colorado’s Boulder campus. In 2000 at the University of Kentucky, student David Hutchinson was threatened with suspension after leaving a pre-presidential “get-out-the-vote” note in chalk. He is forbidden to ever chalk on his campus again. And here at home we have our own anonymous chalker, with passionate opinions about reverse-racism. And of course, some people are offended, others are indifferent and still others vehemently abhor the anonymous chalker.
What we need to do here is grow up — it’s CHALK. The stuff you played hopscotch with in grammar school. The stuff your teacher uses on the blackboard. If this is how someone wants to get his or her message out, then so be it — it’s neither detrimental nor permanent.
Though I recognize that the message may be considered detrimental, it’s just as easy to ignore as the 11 billion “Studio 8” advertisements written in 40 different fonts throughout the Quad. I don’t defend our anonymous chalker’s opinions and views, because I never had the chance to read the entire message. But I do defend the anonymous chalker’s right to chalk whatever he or she thinks.
Furthermore, I would never call the anonymous chalker a coward for not signing his or her message and including contact information. I’m forced to wonder if — just as the anti-reverse-racism chalker certainly had to work up the nerve to leave his or her message — there would have been the same hoopla if a message in favor of reverse-racism had been left instead?
The fact of the matter is that the chalker brought a valid issue to our attention; reverse racism is a growing concern for persons of all races in our age group, as we are in an educational institution and getting ready to embark into the work force, both foundations marked by race and gender biases and quotas. The chalker’s views seem to have been a bit excessive (again, I’ve yet to read the text in its entirety), but if they served only to make us think of a different facet of the educational and work force dynamics, then they served their purpose. Now that the delicate political facet has been addressed, it all boils down to the question of whether or not the University should adopt rules to standardize chalking.
At the University of Nebraska, students may only chalk in what junior Chris Norton calls “two obscure locations.” He goes on to remind us “It’s only chalk after all. It’s not going to be there forever.” Minnesota State University Moorhead has enacted a policy that requires a student to obtain a permit before chalking on campus — in the designated areas, of course. Furthermore, no chalker may leave a rival view in proximity of existing chalk messages.
Limiting chalk writing on campus is absurd. If you really hate it, scuffle your feet through the Quad or do a rain dance.