Every so often, the seriousness of a bias incident reaches seemingly unprecedented levels. This is to discourage future behavior that could further upset the balance of Tufts' social environment, in which people from all walks of life can come together freely and openly to share experiences, knowledge and ideas. After all, Tufts' social environment is certainly one of its selling points and is only made possible by the student body's compliance.
Upon entry, freshmen are silently shepherded into tacitly consenting to this unstated social contract. They trade in a few freedoms to help forge a unique and vibrant environment in which openness and individuality thrive — an environment that noticeably dissipates as you move away from campus. The e-mail sent out Sept. 21 by Deans Robert Sternberg and Linda Abriola in response to the recent bias incident even referenced the need to preserve this ideal community, stating that "the denigration of any individual or group based on race or ethnicity is not consistent with the civic discourse that makes for a great university community." Tufts students are repeatedly asked to do what is best for the community, and it is not like acquiescing to this demand is difficult for most Jumbos who, according to Princeton Review's student survey, are "genuinely nice," "laid back" and "only competitive with themselves."
However, some individuals choose to violate this unspoken contract the moment they are first confronted with it, like when freshman In-Goo Kwak came to Tufts and decided to parody the poster of a candidate running for a seat on the Tufts Community Union Senate. The campus' reaction to Kwak's parody poster, which included front-page Daily coverage and a reactionary meeting, had students in a hysteria that was all too reminiscent of last year's bias incident involving members of the Tufts Korean Students Association. However, equating Kwak's case to cases like last year's bias incident, in which a freshman shouted racial slurs amid an altercation with a group of Korean students, sets a dangerous precedent.
When an individual refuses to follow the herd, no matter how feeble or ill-conceived his attempts at resistance are, steps are taken by those in charge to force the rogue into compliance. One initial step involves the demonization of the individual by those on the offense. In an op-ed published on Sept. 28, fittingly titled "Time for intolerance," Robert Siy, community representative of the Asian Student Union, said Kwak made many people feel both "hurt and confused." In addition to being scolded by various officials, Kwak will probably also gain a reputation for being a racist. Most students refuse to sympathize with this handicap, despite knowing that it will surely influence and possibly poison every one of Kwak's future relationships with students, faculty and staff members who are familiar with his past. Upsetting the balance in the community prompts reactionary justice that is characterized by the same prejudice this campus intended to expunge. Vilification of perpetrator precedes vilification of offensive speech in general. I'd check off this step the moment Siy demanded the administration "recognize [Kwak's] posters and all similar ones as unwelcome in the Tufts community."
Before this issue officially expires from public debate, I must express my hesitancy in letting a student representative tell our university that this poster and all similar ones are unwelcome in the Tufts community. While we are all aware of the harmful effects of Kwak's racist and offensive poster, are we to assume that such effects overshadow the inherent value of this individual's chosen method of self expression? Tufts students were very quick to jump back on the April 9, 2009 bandwagon in pronouncing Kwak's poster deplorable, but if we suspend our rage and take a brief glance at it, we might see other interpretations. We might even determine that this is not the equivalent of painting a swastika on a doorway, hanging a noose on a tree or calling a bunch of Koreans "chinks."
Some students made the point that because Kwak is South Korean, his poster represents an attempt to distance himself from his own heritage, an act that is harmful because it reaffirms a negative stereotype of Asians. This stereotype might be related to what sociology professor Nazli Kibria says in her 1999 study, "College and Notions of ‘Asian-American,'" in regards to Asian students' popular image as "nerdy" — that is, "extremely studious, serious, shy, mathematically inclined and lacking in social skills and outside interests." She goes on to say that "the ‘Asian nerd' embodies qualities that are fundamentally antithetical to individuality." Kibria's study analyzes the college lives of 64 second-generation Chinese and Korean Americans and her findings could shed some light on why Kwak felt the need to comment on a stereotype. Finding himself in a new place surrounded by strangers, Kwak saw an opportunity to express his individuality by simultaneously rejecting a stereotype he felt being placed on him by strangers and taking action so bold that it prompted people to reexamine their expectations of him and his race.
A simpler explanation might be that he wanted to highlight the ridiculousness of freshmen running for Senate at the start of the school year despite having little experience with which to govern. Kwak obviously had no intention of insulting the Senate candidate whose poster he was parodying, and he issued an apology to those he did offend.
My point is not to defend Kwak's poster but merely to point out the fact that just because it was received publicly as offensive does not mean it is inherently bad. Students can be offended by what they see, but that should not give them the right to label it censorable. Yet there are people urging our administration to ban Kwak's poster and all similar ones from Tufts. Keep in mind that similar posters could be ones that depict Muhammad, insult President Barack Obama or make the case for atheism; no matter what, they're all offensive to someone and therefore should be unwelcome at Tufts.
This entire time, we've been shamed into thinking that because of people like In-Goo Kwak, our environment has been tainted and we must work to quash the infestation. But this is not the case. Instead, a poster, as unauthorized and offensive as it may be, is a form of speech, and if an individual lacks the freedom to express such speech on a college campus of all places, then what exactly are we trying to preserve in the first place? This poster, while certainly immature and crude, has brought up interesting questions, lively debate and the type of controversy that characterizes the college experience.
What truly stands at odds with the goal of a college environment is the same mindset Ray Bradbury warned us about in "Fahrenheit 451": Society requested the government shield it from anything that could be deemed offensive, which led to the burning of all books. It is complacency, apathy, demagoguery and the fear of opposing viewpoints that now pose the real threats to our precious environment. To avoid such hazards, we must call upon both our courage and our maturity to look past the initial shock value of speech and leave our emotions at the door. And as Tufts President Lawrence Bacow stressed in 2007, "We must be vigilant in defending individual liberties even if it means that from time to time we must tolerate speech that violates our standards of civility and respect."
--
C.J. Saraceno is a junior majoring in political science. He is the assistant web editor of The Primary Source.
--
This article originally stated incorrectly that University President Lawrence Bacow's quote was in response to last semester's bias incident involving members of the Korean Students Association. The statement was actually made in response to issues concerning free speech and The Primary Source in 2007. This was corrected on 10/6/2009.
