Opinion: One step forward, three steps back for inclusivity

Chancellor Folt and leaders of this university, you went back on your word.

Last spring in the wake of HB2, you emailed the UNC community and reassured us that “we all must work tirelessly to ensure that every member of our community feels welcome and safe.”

You reminded us that “Carolina is deeply committed to the ideals embedded in the soul of our beloved University.”

Are the ideals of the University to oppress freedom of expression and diversity in thought? Is an environment considered welcoming or safe if a sign for gender equality is deemed a potential threat to the legitimacy of the University? Are we considered equal if the decision made by student leaders of the Campus Y in 2013 to use gender-neutral signage was overridden by administrators?

Last Wednesday, these signs in the Campus Y were forcibly removed. No one was notified or warned. Instead, government-regulated bathroom signs were installed. This was an act of censorship.

UNC spokesperson Jim Gregory defended this action by saying the gender neutral signs were difficult for international visitors to understand. In the 2014-2015 school year, there were nearly 5,000 international students and scholars from more than 90 countries at UNC.

Considering these figures, where are the multilingual signs? If we were to consider “international recognition,” then why are there not Chinese and Spanish translations, considering those are the top two most spoken languages in the world.

Administrators viewed these signs as mere pieces of plastic that could be flippantly ripped from walls and replaced. This casual disregard for the beliefs and values held by the Campus Y is insulting.

The Campus Y is a space on campus that welcomes all gender expressions and identities.

As stated numerous times, even by UNC system president Margaret Spellings, HB2 does not contain enforcement provisions. Thus, the gender-neutral bathroom signs were legitimate. But, to some, they were seen as problematic.

Instead of the heteronormative symbols for a man or woman, the former sign presented a symbol to represent male, female and transgender identities.

Yes, the old sign differs from the one recommended by the federal government, but this difference doesn’t warrant its removal.

The incident is just the latest in a string of events that have marked North Carolina with homophobia and prejudice.

N.C. Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest recently claimed “‘transgenderism’ is a feeling.”

His offhand comment implied “transgenderism,” a term most often used by anti-trans activists to dehumanize transgender people, is fleeting and abstract.

Spellings refused to comment on LGBTQ “lifestyles” last year.

Gov. Pat McCrory took the media firestorm around a homophobic bill as a personal attack and has yet to change his stance.

It is unsettling to realize that the leaders of this university system and this state are narrow-minded in their views of the queer community.

When a sign of inclusion is forcibly removed, one look at the defaced wall is enough to read the clear message: they will work tirelessly to accommodate you, but only on their terms.