 "Photo: Alyssa Benedetto")
 "Photo: Erica Cohen")
On Wednesday and Thursday, an anti-abortion display sponsored by the registered student organization Pro-Life Vanguard sparked a First Amendment rights debate among students and community members.
The Genocide Awareness Project, which was displayed on The Green by the national anti-abortion group Center for Bio-Ethical Reform drew a protest of students against the use of both the graphic photographs of aborted fetuses, as well as the parallels drawn to the Holocaust and lynching.
Kurt Linnemann, director of CBR Maryland, said the display is meant to make the point that abortion is comparable to historical genocide.
"Our purpose is to provoke thought and conversation on abortion," Linnemann said.
The California-based advocacy group GAP travels around the country displaying its posters on college campuses.
Gina Paladinetti, vice president of Pro-Life Vanguard, said the display was simply showing a truth.
"This shows people when they are discussing abortion, this is what it looks like," Paladinetti said.
In response to CBR's protest on Wednesday, more that 200 university students gathered on the steps of Gore Hall Thursday to hold a counter-protest when CBR returned for the its second day of protest. The counter-protesters held posters with various messages "Against Abortion, Don't Get One," "Truth, let's start an intelligent conversation," and "Stop Genocide, Pull Out."
Sophomore Austin Cory Bart, who organized the counter-protest through a Facebook group, said it was not a pro-life versus pro-choice debate, but rather a disagreement with the tactics used by CBR.
"I was shocked and offended," Bart said. "I don't approve of the methods used at all."
The displays raised a question about free speech on campus, and students with both viewpoints gathered around Gore Hall to debate the use of the images and spoke with students and community members about similar issues.
Scott Mason, associate director of student centers, said the group was allowed because it was sponsored by Pro-Life Vanguard, which applied for permits to display posters on The Green.
"Like other RSOs, they filled out a request to reserve The Green for a space in which to present their event," Mason stated in an e-mail message. "The Green may be reserved by any department or recognized student organization at UD."
The university has received varied feedback about the protest, Mason said.
"Students, staff, faculty and community concerns pertaining to the content of the display are appreciated and many different administrators have been contacted with such concerns," he said. "However, there have also been students that have written stating that though they do not like the display, they appreciate the support of free speech." Mason emphasized the university's sensitivity to the right of freedom of speech and personal and academic freedom.
"[The university] is committed to creating an educational community that is intellectually, culturally and socially inclusive," he said.
Each student who e-mailed the Office of Student Life received an e-mail response from Dean of Students Dawn Thompson. The message also discussed the school's sensitivity to the right of freedom of speech.
"Please know that we understand the sensitive nature of the images being presented. We encourage you to express your thoughts to the Pro-Life Vanguard student organization or in a letter to the editor of The Review," Thompson stated in the e-mail message.
Junior Derek Sherman said he did not see any harm in the display because the protesters were simply voicing an opinion.
"Everyone has freedom of speech," Sherman said. "I don't know how necessary it is to have the pictures so big, but I guess it gets the point across.
Sophomore Heidi Lieberman agreed the First Amendment should be respected, but believed more warnings should have been placed around campus to let students know what they would be seeing.
"I respect their opinion, but they went around this the wrong way," Lieberman said.
Senior Christina Rizzo thought the display was insensitive to women who have had abortions.
"What if you were a woman who had an abortion because you had no choice," Rizzo said. "How would you feel having to look at that?"
Others thought the pictures were necessary to get the point across.
"I feel like we should know what's going on," sophomore Laura Dodd said. "If people will see them, they'll start thinking about what abortion really is."
Junior Randi Bass said the display went too far. She said the images were imposing on students' rights because the CBR is forcing its opinion on them.
"It's disturbing," Bass said.
Bass was also angry at the use of Holocaust photos to compare abortion to genocide. She said genocide and abortion are unrelated topics.
"They are both bad, but not the same thing," Bass said. "It becomes racially insensitive," she said.
Sophomore Hannah Niedel echoed these comments, citing the offensive nature of the comparisons made by CBR. Despite her anger, Niedel was able to find a positive thing about the event.
"I've never seen the school so passionate about something," Niedel said. "It's cool to see students come out and protest against something they think is wrong."
is a member of the 
6 comments
Nicer? Are you freaking kidding me? Trying to deny women their rights isn't "nice" or "less offensive". You describe fetuses as "human chattel"--isn't this what you want to do to women? Force them to, essentially, risk their lives (8 out 100,000 American women die in childbirth) or their health (women often suffer postpartum depression, internal issues, or have to stop taking medications that may harm the fetus) to carry a child to term. To me, that's incredibly offensive, and disgusting--moreso than any pictures.
Have you done any research on what happens when you ban abortion? In Mexico, right now, a 10 year old girl who was raped by her stepfather is being denied an abortion--regardless of the physical risk to her, a child herself, not to mention the mental anguish this will cause her. But of course, the anti-abortion activists don't care what happens to children once they're born.
Some anti-abortion activists suggest a compromise--making exceptions for rape, incest, and a risk to the mother's life. But if they truly believed that a fetus was a person, they wouldn't condone abortion in any case--after all, people who rape or comit incest aren't put to death, so why should a "person" (which a fetus definitely isn't) ever be aborted? Banning abortion is nothing more than an attempt to subjugate women, and punish them for their sexual activity. In conclusion--no, I didn't go to the less-graphic anti-abortion programs. Why? Because I'd rather not be in the company of terrible people who want to deny me of the right to control my own body.
As a retired member of the University community, I came out to support the Pro-Life Vanguard students' efforts to get people to see the ugly side of abortion. The human corpses in the huge displays were disgusting, but documentary witness to the ugly truth of what is done behind closed doors in the cool, efficient rooms of abortion clinics. Over and over again, those who protested the photo-mural display said to me on Wednesday and Thursday, "Why did they have to use such sensationalism? Why did they have to use such an offensive approach? Why couldn't they make their point in a more civilized manner?"To these folks, I asked, "Where were you when they did hold meetings, debates, and speakers who looked at the abortion issue in a nicer, less offensive way? Where were you when Feminists for Life President Serrin Foster came on campus to discuss how pro-life and pro-choice people on other campuses were collaborating to make campuses more friendly to pregnant students? Where were you when efforts were made to provide free daycare for students so they can continue their education while raising a child? Where was your support for discussing adoption as a choice?"Sadly, we human beings seem to get exercised over graphic displays that offend us, when we are bored out of our minds with ordinary intellectual discussion. And perhaps it is good that this is so. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that without the images shown across the nation of the injustices perpetrated against African-Americans, the civil rights movement would never have succeeded. Today, the most egregious violation against human rights in this country is the victimization and killing of unwanted, unborn human beings. The womb is among the most dangerous places for a human life to be developing. A fetus in our society is human chattel - owned by its mother, who has complete power of life and death over its growth and nurturing.It's good that this is being seen in all its ugliness. As for the comparison to genocide -- "comparable is not identical." In all the instances of genocide depicted in the GAP display, wouldn't it have been wonderful if there had been people speaking out against the victims, saying to the rest of society, "This is not right! This cannot stand!" Instead of being angry at the comparison, folks should be grateful that there are voices and witnesses willing to stand up for the victims of abortion here and now. Millions of them. Millions.