“We need to talk.” That might be the most uncomfortable sequence of words in the English language but I think you saw this one coming before it turned the corner. The campus has been buzzing about the College Libertarian-sponsored Free Speech Wall all week. On Thursday night— the eve of the Constitution’s anniversary—sophomore Joel Lopata went all Gorbachev on us and tore down this wall igniting even the politically apathetic and organizing the campus into pro-wall and anti-wall camps. As an institution powered by the First Amendment the Graphic found itself in the midst of a relevant delicate conversation about freedom of expression.
The Free Speech Wall was erected to celebrate freedom of speech even if that speech may be repulsive obscene or heretical— and we’re blessed to live in a nation that protects this freedom. In fact despite all the commotion over Greek rush SGA elections and more the most popular guy on campus right now is probably Voltaire (after that guy featured in the “Bed Intruder Song of course). That French philosopher got it right: I may disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
But before the village goes after Joel with torches and pitchforks it’s important to note the First Amendment is conditional. According to federal law private property owners reserve the right to limit freedom of expression in their establishment (think of the “no shirt no shoes no service” policy). However in California we have what’s known as Leonard Law which grants students at private universities the same First Amendment rights on campus that they would enjoy on public property off campus. This law does not prohibit disciplinary action for harassment threats and intimidation nor does it deny private institutions the right to implement regulations in order to prevent hate violence.
We don’t speak Lawyer so in layman’s terms what does this mean for us? By law free speech is free speech everywhere including this campus. Technically we have a legal right to say whatever we please anywhere anytime and shouldn’t have to wince while we wait for an administrator to give the stamp of approval. But the university has the right to monitor the posters on their walls for libel discrimination harassment or anything that could promote hate. It’s not a suppression of our rights— it’s private property. We have our rights to free thought and expression but we should be grateful that the beloved Wall in all its libelous and obscene glory was allowed to hang proudly for the better part of a week in a private establishment. (Mark Davis fan club anyone?)
And all this isn’t to say that we weren’t excited about having the Free Speech Wall last week. It was fascinating to see a cross-section of even the most guarded minds of Pepperdine and it called attention to our many often-undervalued rights as Americans. This display of unbridled self-expression could even be viewed as Pepperdine’s collective poetry: designed to evoke emotion response and discourse through nameless expression. After all a sharp anonymous response to a racy comment on the wall only attacks an idea not an individual. The concept’s just abstract enough that it must be great right?
Wrong. Anonymity does not negate consequence. Your words have impact regardless of whether a name is attached to them so wield them wisely. Some of the comments scribbled on the Free Speech Wall were distasteful needlessly cruel immature factually false and well just plain asinine. Although this was to be expected it was terribly disappointing. There is virtue in self-restraint friends. Take for instance the tradition of former presidents to withhold criticism of their successors. President George W. Bush recently refused to comment on President Obama’s policies and polls show that people regardless of previous opinions of Bush respect him more for keeping criticisms to himself rather than standing up. No one’s throwing a shoe at him now are they?
Have a spine but also have a filter. Forsake the latter and a fellow student will spray paint over your comment. Welcome to the Wall.
But the more outrageous comments seem to indicate students merely entertained themselves. They ceased to make intelligent contributions to free speech in favor of ignorant banter. Which onlookers absorbed the more serious thought-provoking questions and who just laughed at racial slurs and “your mom” jokes? One thing is abundantly clear— one of the goals of the wall was to encourage discourse among the Pepperdine community and it certainly did so. The Pepperdine campus is engaging in discourse some intellectual and some frivolous. The bulk of this discourse may never leave a person’s mind— who always has a pen on hand to contribute anyway?— but the debate is still there. Plus it was pretty entertaining.
We’ll always be on the team batting for free speech against an oppressive force. But make no mistake: once you’ve singled and gotten on first we’re going to give you an earful from the sidelines about how reckless and choppy your swinging was. We’re in this together and if we want to score any runs in this game we’ve got to be smart about our swings.