Campus Protests Expressions of Hate

by Gina L. Campanella
Opinions Editor

It is not uncommon to be able to read colorful chalk phrases on the sidewalks around campus. Typically these phrases are categorized as benign.

This past Thursday, Union College students were not expecting to be confronted with chalk messages that were not the usual freshman campaign slogans or advertisements for campus events.

One week ago today, students awoke to find the campus decorated with phrases and words allegedly celebrating heterosexuality.

Some of the most prevalent phrases read “Go straight,” “Mother Nature says no,” “Stay in the closet,” and “Hey! Don’t be gay.” One may have noticed that those messages advocating heterosexuality, and in some cases clearly anti-homosexual, were promptly removed by Campus Operations before 2PM.

It is assumed by the student body and by Campus Security that whoever is responsible for this incident was responding to the celebration of National Coming Out Day a week earlier.

In honor of National Coming Out Day, the student organization of Union BiSexual, Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (UBGLAD) drew messages of tolerance and support of homosexuality on many campus sidewalks and roads.

These messages remained untouched until the next time it rained and they were finally washed away.

In an interview with Director of Campus Safety, William Sickenger, Concordiensis learned that a number of complaints about the anti-homosexual graffiti had been filed with Dean Williams that morning.

In response to these complaints, Campus Security filed a report, took pictures of the evidence and then washed it away with the help of Campus Operations and portable power washers.

Sickenger referred to the writing as “graffiti” and explained that such discriminatory behavior is against school policy.

Sickenger explained, “The base of everything here is tolerance. When something becomes intolerant of others it gets in the way.”

When asked what Campus Security planned to do concerning the pursuit of those responsible for this event, Sickenger stated, “without any leads or suspects there is not much we can do.”

The majority of the students concerned with this incident have accepted the fact that they will not be able to locate the responsible party, however this does not mean that students are accepting this situation.

Late in the afternoon, that very same Thursday, many campus organizations began to mobilize.

The Multicultural Advisory Group (MAG) almost immediately began to gather signatures for a petition against such acts of intolerance and discrimination.

Faculty and students involved in this organization stationed their petition at a table in the campus center from Friday, October 27 through Tuesday, October 30 gathering support for their cause.

This group described their goal as more of a statement of support rather than an attempt to root out the perpetrator. MAG student representative, Sophomore Pooja Kothari explained, “It doesn’t seem like it matters exactly who did it since homophobia and anti-gay sentiment is prolific on campus regardless if people act on their beliefs.”

In addition to MAG, another group of students, UBGLAD and Student Action, retaliated by covering the ground in front of the campus center, the library and all of the sidewalks in between with phrases that read “Celebrate diversity,” “Hate is not a family value.” “I love my gay and straight friends,” and “Gay is ok, straight is too” just to cite a few examples.

Due to some precipitation over the night, only a few of these messages of tolerance remained by the next Friday morning.

Some were curious if Campus Security had arranged for these messages to be removed as well.

However, Sickenger assured Concordiensis that he has no knowledge of these messages being intentionally removed and that only the areas of bias were cleaned up the previous afternoon.

Finally, this event has seemed to spark a disagreement between many students on campus. The biggest concern is how the line between free speech and terrorism is determined and, more importantly, who is responsible for making such a determination.

When confronted with this dilemma, Sickenger explained the administrative viewpoint. He states, “The college promotes a free and open learning environment but, with that, people need to understand they have to be tolerant of one another’s beliefs.”