Free Speech Wall Success

Luke Wachob

Madison Liberty built a Free Speech Wall on April 1^st, 2012, and placed it on JMU’s Commons from April 2^nd through April 9^th. It took many long hours to build, but was well worth it for the ocean of student expression that flowed through (and beyond) its two-sided 4x8 panes over the weeklong period.

          The wall’s sprawling mess of politics, social commentary, school pride, and non sequiturs filled my heart with joy every time I walked by it. That probably sounds like hyperbole, but it’s not. This was a physical manifestation of the abstract concept of liberty: it was open to all but forced on none, it was vibrant and ever-changing, it was delightfully contradictory. And above all, it was peaceful.

          Both the wall’s content and its authors impressed me. Despite controversial views being expressed about religion and government, the wall didn’t descend into so-called “hate speech”. And no one scribbled out another’s message, instead responding to things they disagreed with by writing their own views, creating long dialogues tied together by arrows zigzagging across the Wall. More common than insults and curses were expressions of love and fraternity, aimed at individuals, the JMU community, and the entire world.

          The co-dependent relationship between freedom and peace comes as a surprise to many, but in practice we see it everywhere. JMU embraced free speech through its policies last fall, becoming a green light school for speech (according to thefire.org), and the dividends of mutual respect, harmony, and a higher class of student discourse are already being paid.

          When speech is policed and repressed, the opportunity to write or speak freely often leads to nastiness and vulgarity. Pent-up frustrations are let loose without restraint, and people can’t help but try to push limits. We all want to give The Man the middle finger, after all. JMU lets us express ourselves in our daily lives, so we don’t need to turn a Free Speech Wall into a symbol of our repressed anger and frustration. We can, and did, turn our Wall into a symbol for freedom, love, and plurality. Could college be any better?

Free Speech Wall

Madison Liberty invites YOU to write on our Free Speech Wall any day this week to celebrate your Constitutional rights!  The wall is located on the Commons next to D-Hall, and it will be there all week.  Come make your voice heard!

Climate Change Deniers Need Treatment, Claims Professor

Helen Shibut

Apparently, climate change is such an enormous problem that the only rational solution is to “treat” scientific dissidents as if they suffer from some bizarre and serious mental illness.  At least that’s what Professor Kari Norgaard of the University of Oregon argued at the Planet Under Pressure Conference this week.  Norgaard argues that people are too comfortable with their own beliefs about climate change, and that “this habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level.”  No doubt it is the state that must lead the charge against individuals who disagree with Norgaard, and in fact, her paper, co-authored by Robert Brulle and Randolph Haluza-Delay, complains about the lack of Congressional focus on climate change. 

            Norgaard’s reasoning is dangerous as well as flawed in the practical sense.  From a civil liberties standpoint, the state obviously should not be in the business of forcing people to believe in climate change or to spend their money, in the form of taxes, on anything else they oppose.  Whether climate change is real or not has nothing to do with the fact that people have the right to their own beliefs.  The government does not have the authority to punish people for being atheists or Christians, though obviously both positions cannot be equally true.  As far as I know, neither of those groups has demanded a state-sponsored conversion effort to rid the nation of dangerous misconceptions.

            Furthermore, if Norgaard really wants to see something done about global climate change, she should not look to the federal government, whose Department of Defense is the world’s largest polluter.   The federal government is known for its tendency to consider itself above its own rules, and carbon emissions standards are no exception.  If she wants to see any real movement in the direction she wants, Norgaard should convince (not coerce!) those in the private sector of the merits of her ideas.  She might make better headway if she stopped equating those who disagree with her radical ideas with racists. 

           

http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/3/simultaneous-action-needed-break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/

http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pup_session.asp?19170

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/