Dear Mr. Smith,
I write in regards to your self-proclaimed “moral imperative,” that is, the destruction of the Carleton free speech wall and the corresponding message you posted on Facebook regarding your actions.
As I understand it, you took the wall as an affront to the various marginalized groups both on and off the Carleton campus, and if not a direct attack, then as the potential for the future expression of hatred and discrimination.
I will be frank: Your actions, while well intentioned, were counterproductive, and your words, pretentious and (ironically) filled with platitudes. From what I have seen, the exception that most have taken with your actions is the fact that you seem to have designated yourself as the sole arbiter of what is offensive, and which opinions have merit. While I understand and share this disagreement, the exception I take to your actions is a far more fundamental one.
Simply put, you seem to believe that the face value of your behaviour and stated intentions are the only interpretation that one can take. You believe, mistakenly, that the people you are truly trying to stymie will bother to read your manifesto, or even listen to a single word of yours as gospel. This is not the case. Those who would choose to bear hatred and ignorance in their hearts will not see this act of protest as anything other than reactionary nonsense, and though I hate to admit it, they are correct in this perception, in at least some form.
The act of tearing down a free speech wall in this context carries with it certain implications, which are dependent upon the two possible motivations you had for doing so. The first is that you saw something on that wall which offended you, or something that you perceived as hateful. In this case, an obstinate response of complete censorship is not only non-conducive to your goal of combating hatred, but implicitly gives everyone license to silence others when something that they individually feel is offensive is shared. You do not seem to deny this, as per your Twitter account: “Isn’t the responsibility [of deciding which opinions have merit] both collective and individual?” But there is a very serious difference between appraising an opinion’s merit, and silencing that opinion based upon that appraisal. Recognizing this difference, I feel, is the true “moral imperative” that you should be considering.
The second possible motivation you had for tearing down the wall is a belief that the wall carried with it the possibility (or the inevitability) of bearing hateful, triggering or discriminatory language. Although I doubt that this is the case, I must address the possibility. If it is, then I feel my words may be wasted on you, as surely, you could not bring yourself to read any newspaper with an opinions column, nor would you feel comfortable speaking to anyone over any medium, online or otherwise. The reason for this, perhaps needless to say, is the fact that every medium carries with it the implicit risk of containing hateful, ignorant and vile messages. If your ideology necessitates not only the removal of all hateful language, but also the removal of the risk thereof, then it effectively abolishes all forms of speech. As I said, however, I seriously doubt that this was your intention. I include this only for the sake of clarity and thoroughness.
Anyone can take a journalistic approach to your actions. Anyone can look at the fact that a wall was put up to celebrate freedom of speech and expression, and then it was torn down and conclude that it was a bad thing. But as I said before, I am more interested in the implications of your actions rather than the actions themselves. The conclusions I draw from a deeper analysis are far more unfortunate. The potential consequences in the form of misinterpretation alone belie your stated intentions of fighting homophobia and hatred. They stand as a testament to the fact that acts of forceful resistance can, when misused, invalidate an entire ideology in the public eye, even if that ideology is otherwise completely admirable. And an ideology denied by the public at large, regardless of its merits, is of no more use nor consequence than an ideology that was never shared to begin with. You would do well to remember that, I believe.
In closing, I leave you with one more thing to consider. As it happens, I am gay. I have never publicly admitted this, though this was never out of shame, nor embarrassment, nor fear of repercussion. I realize that I am truly lucky to never have been subjected to hate or harassment based on my identity. But I do know those that have. And I know that actions such as yours do nothing to ingratiate those that also fight against homophobia and hatred in the eyes of the public. If you are offended by this message, I apologize, as I realize that an incendiary response would be useless and hypocritical. But I implore you to consider it carefully, as the disservice your actions are doing to the community you are attempting to help is a very severe one.
— Joshua Balanuik
third-year computer science
