The glaring eyes and gaping mouths of hundreds of UD students marked the beginning of one of the most controversial moments on campus last April.
Last week, we were forced to relive these moments. Some put their heads down and quickened their pace while others stopped to take in the horrifying display strategically in the middle of the South Green. Pictures of Holocaust victims, lynched African-American men and open graves of genocide victims had been plastered right next to abortion pictures on the billboards.
Between the pictures and writing, it was clear those who posted the display despised abortion and equated it to genocide. Over the two-day period hundreds of students gathered, protesting the anti-abortion display. Standing in front of the images were members of the Center for Bioethical Reform, ready to argue their display.
As I watched all of these events unfold, a deep anger came upon me. Yes, I was angry-—this group equated the Holocaust and the enslavement of African-Americans to abortion—but my deep anger came from disbelief. With a history filled with many years of fighting for equality, human rights, and freedom, this group had used the First Amendment in order to push their negative agenda. They turned the UD campus into something short of a hospital medical products dumpster. How could we spend so much of our blood, sweat and tears to create a liberating country only to revert back to such childish and disrespectful behavior? If I was a prospective student or a parent of a prospective student, and I had taken a tour on a day with this display up, I probably wouldn't want to come to UD.
The reality is that even though The Green marks the path between residence halls and class buildings, it is property open to university students and organizations. Thus, the university must OK displays but cannot discriminate against a particular group. Therefore, when many students voiced outrage toward the gruesome anti-abortion display, the university just responded with a mediocre, prepared response stating they were not liable for any displays and the group had the right to be there because of the First Amendment.
Do I think the First Amendment should be dissolved? Absolutely not. But I do believe that a change needs to happen. We should not take for granted the gift of freedom and use it as a security blanket. We have abused liberty too much and we should all take a giant step back. As much as I wish for this to end simply by holding hands and skipping through daisies, it is simply unrealistic. With this larger problem, I see a few smaller issues that can be tackled easily.
Firstly, we have to break our egocentric and ethnocentric view. While other nations have nationalism, we have patriotism and the ever-changing implications of being an American. Unfortunately, the label of being an American has started to regain its tarnished meaning from the Puritan Era. Originally, being an American was meant as being cowardly or wimpy and, in some cases, savages. We have continually been cowering away from trying to understand any other ways of life but our own. There are exceptions of course, but lately, the tendency seems to simply write off someone lifestyle we don't agree with. Our pompous attitudes far surpassed our accomplishments. We boast and brag, sometimes without intention, but still look for the upper hand. Think about the average conversation. A conversation may lead to someone trying to one-up the other person. The discussion can vary to who is having more stress or work or to what transpired over the weekend. Beating the Joneses' is no longer just about possessions; it is about how well one can exceed the other person in any subject. This notion coupled with the constant judgment passed between each person makes our perspective so much narrower.
Secondly, we need to learn how to hold an argument. The art of debate has diminished, not only in high schools across the country, but in everyday situations. It seems that, far too often, the discussion becomes overly heated and personal. I recognize that any debate-worthy discussion is of course personal on some level; however, any sort of professionalism and eloquence in supporting an argument has evolved into a matter of insulting the opposing person or counter argument. Just short of calling the other person an idiot, we have seemed to fall back to a childlike mentality, ultimately resulting in a ‘yea-huh' and ‘not-uh' battle. We have essentially lost our ability to keep our arguments in front of our natural reactions.
By changing things within each of us, we can start to respect the First Amendment, but this is a slow and stressful process. I believe that although administration and student centers approved this display, students should influence the decision. The anti-abortion group clearly knew about this, but what about the pro-choice group? Or women's rights group? This display was brought to campus in April, which is also known as sexual assault awareness month. I realize the anti-abortion group was looking for a response from students, even a negative response, but what would've been the outcome if a display about sexual assault awareness had also been on The Green? So many sexually assaulted women below the poverty line must get abortions; therefore, the two issues are directly linked.
Additionally, what if instead of a display, there had been an open discussion or debate about abortion by a panel of students and professionals along The Green. Students would not even realize it, but this could easily influence them, despite the constant distraction by their already occurring conversations, iPods and phones as they walk on the red bricks to class. Not only would this encourage freedom of speech and cause conversation among students, but it also would be much more educational than a large photograph of an aborted baby.
is a member of the 
17 comments
If any of you had actually read the article, you will notice she is critiquing the methods of your approach, not your message. This is exactly the point she is making- you all want a fight, an argument, a spectacle, not an open minded discussion to explore where the other side is coming from- which involves making concessions and admitting the other side has a valid point, even if you might not agree with it. The the individual who makes the (valid) point that the protesters were not approached to ask why they held the belief that they do, I refer you back to Elise's point-- when some creates an extremely personal, offensive, graphic display, people don't WANT to approach that person or understand the why or any of the beliefs behind it. That antagonistic approach makes the person trying to communicate unapproachable, and automatically pins them as someone who is unwilling to DISCUSS. When something like that is seen, it is generally understood that the people behind it want to create a spectacle to get a reaction, and to cause controversy. The difference between looking for a fight and looking to understand, if you will. So maybe if what your aim is, is to have people approach you to discuss what you have to say, you should try tactics that are less aggressive (feel free to reference the other previous comments where they are demanding a debate from her, when in fact she offers no viewpoint other than indicating she has issue with the methods used), rather than scaring away the people you are trying to reach. For you others: grow up.
Do you really want debate? Let's see. I will debate you on abortion at the University of Delaware. Or anyplace else. At any time. And if you're not up to the challenge, I'll debate anybody else you want to send up in your place. Only one non-negotiable rule: you can't censor my message.
C. Fletcher Armstrong, PhD
Southeast Director
Center for Bio-Ethical Reform