We read all too often of incidents in which the first amendment rights of students fall into that gray area of what is appropriate and what is too much – and how a given administration often settles on what saves itself. When we do, many of us say, “I’m glad I came to PSU – that would never happen here, since we’re such an open campus.” An incident like that occurred this week, but the administration – instead of turning its back on free speech – found a reasonable alternative.
The story itself is fairly simple. Two students wrote a research paper on the rhetorical power of certain symbols throughout history. In particular, they chose to compare the cross and the swastika and the effects these two images have on people. They did not write this paper for class; rather it was to submit to an academic Communication conference in Chicago.
Then came the Investiture of President Steen. For the festivities, departments and organizations received requests to participate by creating posters that display what they do and their academic contributions to campus. These posters would be hung up downtown, to share with the Plymouth community.
A faculty member asked that the two students create a poster for their project, and they agreed and followed through.
The Investiture committee, including President Steen, enjoyed the poster, and believed the students had done an excellent job. There was a problem, however. The pieces of artwork submitted were to be hung up in downtown businesses. The fear was that this could potentially damage the businesses’ reputations if the work was deemed offensive by a member of the general public who did not take the time to read the entire piece.
Only one business seemed a reasonable place to display the piece, because the staff would be right on hand to dispel any confusion or anger. Arrangements to display any artwork there, though, fell through.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is that this situation poignantly makes the entire argument that drove the original paper. In truth, the “swastika” displayed in the poster is not a swastika at all. In Japanese, it is called a manji, used to mark the location of a Buddhist temple and is representative of love and mercy.
People immediately focus on the symbol, and miss the greater meaning – the deeper significance behind it. A symbol is only a symbol, and carries with it only the power that we grant it.
If the swastika were merely a symbol of hate, one might understand – if not agree with – limiting its use. Unfortunately, Hitler chose well. Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek and Celtic pagan religions, among others, also used the swastika, and for them, its meaning is completely different. It represents for some eternity, for others prosperity, or for others the “pinwheel of life” – the idea that life moves and changes, but remains fundamentally the same. Some scholars claim the symbol has been around for some 3000 years. Ironically, if we ban the symbol, we ban freedom of religion and thus justify the use of the swastika in a hateful manner.
At The Clock, in no way do we support racial or religious intolerance of any kind. In fact, doing so is antithetical to the role of a university. What do we mean? A college serves as a unique forum in which different people from different backgrounds can interact and come to the conclusion that we are all human beings who share similar experiences, thoughts and dreams regardless of when or where we were born.
It is important, then, that we never let the mistakes of the past be repeated. We discuss things like the swastika in history classes, so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We analyze them in communication classes, so that we can understand the effects they have. They are mentioned in stories we read in World War II literature. We study this to know the nature of the enemy, the baseless, unreasonable hatred that grinds lives and dreams into dust.
The information this research paper shares, then, must be shared. The administration agreed and stepped up with a solution: the artwork of all the organizations will be displayed in the HUB on Thursday and at the Investiture Banquet.
When the issue was first brought to The Clock’s attention, we feared that the University, like some other schools across the nation, was adopting a policy of censorship – and were truly shocked, because of the way the administration has defended the right of free speech in the past.
We are honestly relieved and thankful that the Investiture Committee has decided to go the extra distance to ensure first amendment rights are not cast aside. On Thursday, we will officially recognize President Steen, and this situation could be considered her final exam as a new president. If so, The Clock gives her – and the rest of the Investiture Committee – an A.