2008 Woodie Awards
Kevin Eldridge
Issue date: 5/18/06 Section: Opinion
In the April 20, 2006 edition of the
Ledger, an article titled "Act of Hate" by
Fil Baloca told the story of an act of vandalism
to a poster advertising the LGBT
Conference. The article included a color
photograph of the vandalized poster, which
was discovered in a restroom on campus.
It also included a quote from an e-mail
sent out by the UWT Chancellor, which
stated in part, "...it would be inappropriate
to let it go unnoticed lest silence be interpreted
as approval."
I received the afore mentioned e-mail,
and I appreciate the Chancellor's measured
and timely notification. As a member of
the campus community, however, I for
one wouldn't have taken silence to mean
approval. Perhaps, instead, not validating
such an expression of intolerance would
be just as appropriate. Perhaps absence of
acknowlegement would be interpreted that
such hateful symbolism isn't worth the
time for consideration.
Furthermore, is calling attention to such
an act by replicating the objectionable
material in full color and distributing it all
over campus the most appropriate way to
respond? Before the article was published,
the message only went out to a select few
who visited a certain washroom, and was
probably taken as seriously as any other
restroom graffiti proffered by one who
couldn't think of any other way to occupy
their mind while conducting their business.
The Ledger article, however, took the
message out of the toilet and distributed
it to every corner of the campus, making
it available to all. To paraphrase an old
show-business adage, you can't buy this
kind of publicity.
This is just one humble student's perspective,
but perhaps the front page section
of the article could have given a positive
build-up to the conference, while only
making mention of the vandalized poster
with a line or two in the continuation of
the article on page 5. Perhaps then the
purveyor of intolerance would have had
to express his opinion in a more appropriate
forum, out from behind the anonymity
of sneaking into a washroom and serupticiously
defacing an advertisement. In
order to be heard, this person might then
have actually had to express his views in
person, open to accountability and critical
discourse.
Otherwise, what is to discourage anyone
who wishes to spread a message of
hate and intolerance if they are confident
that their message will be helped along by
the media?
Ledger, an article titled "Act of Hate" by
Fil Baloca told the story of an act of vandalism
to a poster advertising the LGBT
Conference. The article included a color
photograph of the vandalized poster, which
was discovered in a restroom on campus.
It also included a quote from an e-mail
sent out by the UWT Chancellor, which
stated in part, "...it would be inappropriate
to let it go unnoticed lest silence be interpreted
as approval."
I received the afore mentioned e-mail,
and I appreciate the Chancellor's measured
and timely notification. As a member of
the campus community, however, I for
one wouldn't have taken silence to mean
approval. Perhaps, instead, not validating
such an expression of intolerance would
be just as appropriate. Perhaps absence of
acknowlegement would be interpreted that
such hateful symbolism isn't worth the
time for consideration.
Furthermore, is calling attention to such
an act by replicating the objectionable
material in full color and distributing it all
over campus the most appropriate way to
respond? Before the article was published,
the message only went out to a select few
who visited a certain washroom, and was
probably taken as seriously as any other
restroom graffiti proffered by one who
couldn't think of any other way to occupy
their mind while conducting their business.
The Ledger article, however, took the
message out of the toilet and distributed
it to every corner of the campus, making
it available to all. To paraphrase an old
show-business adage, you can't buy this
kind of publicity.
This is just one humble student's perspective,
but perhaps the front page section
of the article could have given a positive
build-up to the conference, while only
making mention of the vandalized poster
with a line or two in the continuation of
the article on page 5. Perhaps then the
purveyor of intolerance would have had
to express his opinion in a more appropriate
forum, out from behind the anonymity
of sneaking into a washroom and serupticiously
defacing an advertisement. In
order to be heard, this person might then
have actually had to express his views in
person, open to accountability and critical
discourse.
Otherwise, what is to discourage anyone
who wishes to spread a message of
hate and intolerance if they are confident
that their message will be helped along by
the media?
Be the first to comment on this story