The past two days the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), a photo exhibit that is touring college campuses, made a stop in Chapel Hill. The university sent out a warning e-mail yesterday morning to explain that the exhibit would be on display and some may find it offensive and should feel free to seek counseling services if needed. In my busy time I didn’t bother opening the e-mail initially. I also didn’t have classes that would require me to walk through the main quad, so I didn’t know anything that was happening except for the people walking through the rest of campus and on social media complaining about the insensitive photos outside of Wilson Library and how it was disgusting to see such images where tour groups, families, children, and those affected by abortion could see it without proper warning. What? I had seen some fairly straightforward protests from anti-abortion activists before so it sounded rather over-the-top to me; it’s a free country, free speech. But I refused to say anything until I saw it for myself.
Today I looked at the exhibit, featuring graphic photos of aborted fetuses next to graphic photos from widely-known historic genocides, comparing abortion in the US to genocide. I’m not going to share my opinion here because I don’t want the focus of this post to be about me or my beliefs, but the exhibit got me thinking a lot, as many things have since I’ve been in college. Mostly, I thought about what it means to be a college student, a person, a global citizen. And I really thought about what freedom of speech means. I still don’t have the answers but here are a few of my thoughts.
I would never say that it’s okay to give someone the legal right to be insensitive or offensive to someone else, but those are both very subjective topics. Everyone is offended by different things as language itself is ambiguous and subjective. We all have deeply rooted personal reasons for why we believe what we believe. It would be nice if we could all debate and communicate and persuade without stepping on toes and simply showing the better sides to our own argument, but it’s not possible. The members of GAP have opinions and an idea they feel is important to share based on their beliefs. They have every right to share their opinion. The problem a lot of people have on campus is how they are spreading their opinion: is it offensive or freedom of speech? I started thinking about whether free speech means you can say whatever you want however you want to, or if there are boundaries within we can make our arguments.
This is a public university, liberal in nature and committed to education. Education itself, true education, is uncensored. We can’t truly wish to educate a group of students from every US state and territory and several countries by censoring our students from anything we feel may possibly offend. It doesn’t teach us anything about the various viewpoints in the world or how to react and intelligently defend our own beliefs. Moreso, who would make the decision of whether or not something is offensive? We wouldn’t dare put that responsibility in the hands of one or more humans who have their own natural biases and offensives with them. History itself is made of offensive actions that we can’t turn a blind eye to. So, was it wrong for the exhibit to come here? I don’t think so.
Should free speech be censored? This is the question that has bobbled in my head for the past couple of days. A lot of students who protested the exhibit said there weren’t adequate signs warning pedestrians of the graphic photos. Some even volunteered as escorts to walk people around it. A lot of people said they are entitled to their opinion, but using graphic photos where everyone can see and passing flyers featuring these pictures was not the right way. I do think that comparing abortion to genocide is an unfair exaggeration given the definition and context of genocide in comparison to the widely varying situations of women faced with this personal decision. However, they have the right to do so and it’s making a shocking impact, which is what they intended to do. Yes, it can trigger negative emotions for some, yes some women on campus who have been affected by this issue will not appreciate it to say the least, but should we charge the GAP organizers with the responsibility of thinking about these people when designing and posting the exhibit? Should we veil all of our opinions behind the idea of not offending the views of the groups we oppose? If they believe abortion is similar to genocide and want to make the visual statement to shock people is it fair to make them sculpt it with the emotions of pro-choice supporters in mind? Or is it wrong for them to post these pictures without thinking about the feelings they could cause for so many people, including young children?
I’m glad I go to a university where our thoughts can be challenged and discussions can be sparked by events such as this. If anything we can further study how free speech may or may not cross the line at times, and how to properly protest or support important values and ideals. I would love to hear your thoughts on the project, reactions, and freedom of speech in general. Sometimes it’s not about a side being right or wrong, sometimes it’s about the larger abstract ideas of expression, empathy, and freedom.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/03/letter-abortion-should-be-considered-genocide
Hello Candace. You have asked some good questions. The above link connects to a letter to the editor I wrote relating abortion to genocide that was published in the Daily Tar Heel on March 18. From my point of view, it seems incongruous that so many people objected to the public display of the images of aborted pre-natal children, while they aggressively supported (or tolerated) the right to abort. If the display of the images is extreme, doesn’t that show abortion itself to be so much more extreme? Which is entirely our point, of course. Another question is, if women and men who have participated in abortion are traumatized by the images of an aborted child, then isn’t it abortion itself that is traumatic? And if abortion is so traumatic, isn’t better for young adults to see what it really does when it might change their minds so they can be spared that trauma in the future?
A student wrote a response to my letter calling it “Ignorant, hateful and dangerous.” I wrote a letter in reply, but the Daily Tar Heel declined to publish it. It addresses some of your concerns. If this comment of mine posts OK, I will add it later.
LikeLike
A more representative title for my March 18th letter to the editor would be “Abortion could be considered genocide.” Perhaps the DTH’s imperative, “should,” prompted misunderstanding contained in the March 19 reply, “Abortion letter was ignorant and hateful.”
But if abortion is genocide (or if it’s murder) how are we to regard women who participate in taking the lives of their pre-natal children?
Every genocide has aspects in common with other genocides, but every one is different. Women have been deceived into believing abortion is good for them. The reality of abortion being a violent act that will destroy their child is suppressed or withheld. They’ve grown up in a culture that believes sexuality can be separated from reproduction, and it is legal and okay to destroy their offspring. If a comparison can be made, it would be like German young people who grew up in the 1930s. They bear a degree of responsibility for their actions, but they are also victims of those who allowed the killing to be legitimized.
The UN and other definitions of genocide do not refer to hatred. Impassive calculation is enough, because the definitions turn on intent “to destroy in whole or in part.” There are groups, national and international, campaigning to destroy all unwanted children. Planned Parenthood with its slogan “Every child a wanted child” is an example. And often people involved in genocide are motivated only by self-interest.
With genocide, and in any widespread killing, dehumanizing language makes it easier. “Fetus,” commonly used by abortion-choice advocates, refers to any mammal, when the human-specific term is “child.”
For perspective, watch the introductory video at http://www.abortionNo.org. How can such violence be healthy for women? Abortion is anti-women. Not only does it harm mothers, half of the pre-natal children killed by abortion are girls.
I would encourage readers to examine the facts (including gruesome images of the victims of abortion), ignore the petty insults and personal attacks, consider the arguments, and come to the best conclusion. What word describes abortion better than “genocide”?
LikeLike
Odd as it may seem, those who protested against GAP and I both agree on one point. Some speech is so, repugnant, harmful, and dangerous, it should not be allowed to be expressed in public. For example, it is illegal in Germany to deny the Holocaust. While for a citizen of the U.S. that might seem extreme and unnecessary, for Germany which has this terrible, unthinkable history of perpetrating genocide, it seems entirely appropriate.
I don’t know if you saw the two men near the Wilson Library on April 1 wearing black wet suits and holding posters. Those posters, graphic and sexual in nature, actually and specifically violated NC law on the display of obscene materials.
The aborted children images, still protected as free speech, reflect a hidden violent reality, but for those who bear guilt, either direct or indirect, the images may provoke horrible anguish, or anger, which is why some people want them banned. I believe it should be illegal to advocate for legal abortion, which to me is the equivalent of advocating for the legal right to kill born children, or to rape, or to enslave people. Fortunately, we do not tolerate these expressions. So far.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for your comments, and sorry for the delayed response. I do think that everyone has a right to express their opinion and that includes GAP. I also admire you and everyone’s efforts to get this message across and staying committed to your beliefs and being as clear about your ideas as possible. It’s always easier to discuss things diplomatically when arguments are founded from educated well-formed thought processes, which yours are.
I personally am not a fan of abortion, however through speaking with many people and various personal experiences, I can attest that everyone who is pro-choice is not an advocate of abortion if that makes sense. There are many people against it who simply believe that legally they don’t have a right to tell another woman what to do, but it doesn’t mean they are in favor of it. Likewise, every woman who has had an abortion doesn’t mean that she is insensitive to it, or is not hurt or traumatized by the decision, or thinks that it’s an acceptable thing to do. Therefore, while I understand the argument being made and how it can prevent all of this tragedy from occurring, I think it’s also important to be mindful of the varying views and emotions operating from behind both sides of the debate.
LikeLike