“For members of the University community, as for the University itself, the proper response to ideas they find offensive, unwarranted and dangerous is not interference, obstruction, or suppression. It is, instead, to engage in robust counter-speech that challenges the merits of those ideas and exposes them for what they are.”
This quote is taken from the Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression, a statement whose values UNC has agreed with and affirmed. And, quite frankly, it is the perfect response to whomever placed this particular sticker here.
I would recommend to whoever placed this sticker that you read the Chicago statement in full. I have no doubts that your intentions are nothing but good – an attempt to leave the world in a better place than you found it. But it is a misguided attempt.
Your impulse to fight against the people and things that you find evil in society is understandable. However, the way that you go about such an effort matters. By refusing any public space to those who you might find offensive - or even merely disagree with - you engage in the very fascist tendencies that you claim to hate so much.
You might think that refusing a platform to those with offensive views is not fascist, so let me take you through the implications of such a policy. If it is acceptable to ban offensive people or views from a public space such as a college campus, what other areas should we ban them from? Social media is arguably such a public space - and has been banning offensive views for some time. So, perhaps, are newspapers or books - in similar fashion, the prohibition of sales of various goods (such as books) and services which promote sexual orientation change efforts has already been proposed in California. And if we reach a point where these areas are disallowed, a move to disallow offensive people from physically public places like parks does not seem too far off. Soon, you have segregated those who you might find offensive from the rest of society.
In short, the questions that such a policy raises make it clear that a view like this is undoubtedly fascist.
In addition, these descriptions that you have used to define the people you would like to exclude are incredibly broad – too broad. For example, the term “homophobe” could be leveled at every single Christian who believes that living such a lifestyle is a sin, although many Christians would be the first to affirm the inherent dignity and worth of homosexual individuals and Christianity itself paved the way for the advent of the recognition of the value of the individual.
The first democracies, those of the Greeks, were built on the idea of public discussion. The value of public discussion and expression was not lost on our founding fathers who decided to place such a right as the first among those amendments which guaranteed us our rights as American citizens. To deny the democratic tradition of public discussion is not a brave action against evil but a cowardly avoidance of ideas which you consider dangerous. If you really think these ideas are bad or harmful, defeat them in open debate.
Much is made of the need for an even playing ground. We consider it a great injustice if Americans are not provided equality of opportunity. Although it is indisputable that people and ideas are not the same, ideas should have equal access to debate until they are shown to be untenable.
