more matter Judgement day not today

Author: Matty Van Meter

In the hateful graffiti that has appeared in our hallways and the heated response to it, there is revealed a deep and unfortunate tendency for pigeonholing on the part of all involved. To those targeted by the graffiti and to those who were not targeted but still felt worried or simply embarassed, this is all too apparent. It is striking that for all our progress in social education, informed by the unspeakable tragedies of the twentieth century, we have not all learned that the first step towards systematic discrimination is labeling our world in as excessively rigid and simplistic manner, losing the subtlety of perception which we have attained - plain and simple, pigeonholing.

Learning that pointedly offensive and bigoted writing had been found in Ross Commons, I suspect that most students were caught unaware. This had not occurred so visibly in the memories of current students, and it served as a kind of tipping point, both for those prone to actually commit these acts and for that part of the campus community which abhors this parody of self-expression. It has proven unfortunate on both counts, despite everyone's best efforts.

There is always the risk, when an event is highly publicized, that it will inspire copycat incidents. The classic example is school shootings, which sadly proves to be timely in the present moment. School shootings happened before the Columbine incident, but there emerged a particular pattern afterwards, with the perpetrators emulating or even citing (as in the most recent case) the two Colorado students, which is striking. Similarly, the graffiti during spring break caused a tremendous amount of discussion, not all of it good. Because of the visibility and coverage of the bigoted remarks, and the comments by some ardent, though misguided free-speech activists, those students prone to commit such acts of verbal abuse suddenly had a forum in which to do it. The recent marring of a whiteboard would never have been reported or debated in such depth had the prior, larger incident not happened. The students who wrote the graffiti achieved their aim: they were heard by everybody.

In quick response to the first event, the administration held a town meeting, MOQA mobilized and posters of all sizes, colors and descriptions appeared in high-visibility places across campus. For all their fervor, however, the outrage of homophobia's most outspoken critics on campus had all the effect of most reactionary polemical rhetoric, that is, no effect at all. The town meeting turned predictably into a meeting of like minds, some blaming the "conservatives" on campus, or athletes. Let me draw attention to the fact that, beyond being grossly broad and unsubtle assertions, these actions step dangerously close to the line of pigeonholing, and taking that first step into another kind of bigotry.

Blaming broadly defined groups for these events divides our community, alienates potential allies in those groups, deepens the problem and obscures the fact that these fatuous acts were committed not by conservatives, liberals, athletes, artists, prep-school elites or by any other stereotype. They were committed by individuals; individuals who made a very deeply stupid choice. It is easy to blame an impersonal group, and easier still when the stereotype of that group fits the act. This avoids the necessity of looking around and seeing the actual people. But we are taught here, I hope, to put our judgment on hold, and to begin to see and change the specific and individual choices and beliefs which go into such invidious statements as were written in the past few weeks. That is the only way to move forward.