We, like most people, were disturbed when we read about the hateful message painted on the cannon last week by senior Mark Sutherland. Indeed, most people we talked to were upset, justifiably so, at this latest example of the hate that seems to be developing on campus. However, we were also distressed for another reason. What offended us more than the message itself was that the TUPD chose to paint over it.
This event is just one in a series of hateful incidents that have occurred at Tufts this year, many stemming from the controversy over the TCF. It has been reported that nearly 12 "hate crimes" have occurred on campus this year alone-though we doubt many of these incidents rose to the level people normally associate with hate crimes. Most people can agree that the culture of hate developing on this campus is detrimental to all, not to mention those at whom the hateful messages are targeted. But no matter how offended we may be, no matter how much our feelings get hurt, we will never be justified in censoring the views of people with whom we disagree.
There are countless reasons why this censorship is unwarranted, and may even undermine the cause it is seeking to defend. Firstly, the notion of limiting speech contradicts a basic goal of higher education. The college experience is supposed to be one dominated by debate and the exchange of ideas. If ever there were an example of what a "marketplace of ideas" was supposed to be like, college is that example. The free and unrestrained exchange of ideas is fundamental to education, because there are always at least two sides to an issue. Censoring speech stifles debate by inhibiting expression of thought.
What the TUPD did in painting over Sutherland's message simply amounts to a "cop out." It is the easiest way for them to attempt to show that Tufts does not condone hate speech. Presently on this campus, there is intense pressure to be politically correct. This wave of political correctness does a disservice to every student. By censoring unfavorable opinions, the University fails at its job to prepare its students for life in the real world, where hate is evident everywhere. Life outside this liberal university is not as cushy as we would like it to be.
In addition, censorship of hate-speech reinforces the unwarranted stereotype that minority groups lack the ability to overcome hate-motivated opposition. This line of reasoning implies that somehow minority groups can't function and continue to thrive in an open environment where they are not protected by a university policy limiting hate speech. This is a grossly inaccurate assumption.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, censoring hate speech only addresses the symptoms of the overall problem. The American Civil Liberties Union has argued for years that limiting one's ability to express a disfavored view does absolutely nothing to change the speaker's opinion. If anything, that type of censorship reinforces it. Censoring hate speech ignores the causes of hatred by simply sweeping the symptoms under the carpet. In the end, suppressing the opinion of Mr. Sutherland will likely encourage him to paint the cannon again.
An unfortunate result of this censorship is that people like us must come to the defense of a person who professes an opinion we find offensive. But in the end, that is the entire point. No matter how difficult it may be, we all need to respect the right of a person to espouse viewpoints we find objectionable. We will never eliminate hatred by censoring hate speech.
Adam Mueller is a freshman majoring in history. Ben Eskenazi is a freshman who has not declared a major.
