In print | Published February 21, 2008

This week, the College Republicans collectively made the decision to appropriate language that is often associated with the queer community. Over the past several days, both the forums on the Daily Jolt and the Daily Gazette have featured a flurry of comments critiquing the Republicans’ publicity campaign and the anonymous responses to it, which included the removal of some of the original flyers.

While these online forums provide an accessible venue for discussion, we question the utility of anonymous postings that relieve their authors of accountability.

There is a clear disconnect between the language students use in their classes, among acquaintances and friends, and the language they use regularly on anonymous Internet forums like the Daily Jolt and the Daily Gazette’s comments sections. Most of the language used on these forums, particularly on the Daily Jolt, is reprehensible —hateful, vitriolic and ignorant.

We are certain that comments on the Jolt are not a representative sample of the opinions that students hold on this campus, nor do these comments reflect our institutional commitment to dialog and debate.

The resurgence of activity on the Daily Jolt seems to suggest that students would rather relegate controversial issues to marginal online forums than address them in an open and honest debate in which the concerned parties and their grievances are explicitly identified.

Wave upon wave of flyers and retaliatory posters have obscured the issues that students should be discussing face-to-face. Sabotaging or removing an offensive flyer not only infringes upon the freedom of speech; it also precludes constructive dialog for all parties involved.

It is unreasonable to expect the Young Republicans to rethink their appropriation of queer language without expressing this recommendation in a reasoned and respectful manner.

We applaud Nick Forrest, Sebastian Duncan-Portuondo and Shane Breitenstein for their signed editorial, and urge all concerned parties to take responsibility for their words and actions. We believe in ownership of language, whether it be in virtual forums or on the walls and walkways of this campus.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »