Has anyone else been annoyed today by the bible verse written on the sidewalk between the Library and the Natural Resources building?
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
– John 3:16
Wow, I find that obnoxious! USU has really bizarre sidewalk chalk rules (talk to one person it’s banned; to someone else, it’s regulated), and I’m not sure why this form of proselytization particularly annoys me, but it does.
Thoughts? Does anyone think I’m totally overreacting?
I don’t know about “overreaction” I don’t know if its obnoxious, there was some other stuff drawn near old main and near the TSC. Its not really much worse than people making silly designs or advertising movies. I’m glad they’re not wasting paper but a) the chalk is faint and hard for my eyes to make out sometimes and b) its (to steal a line from Full Metal Jacket) “all equally worthless.” I don’t really morally care but its usually ugly or dumb, and if its banned then its banned and there are hooligans about. Graffiti isn’t activism though, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it, otherwise you’ll just drop to their lazy level.
Overreacting? No. Far from it! It is my understanding that the University campus is classified as “public property” and thus should remain secular. It’s similar to the ordeal about displaying the Ten Commandments in capital buildings, or displaying a nativity scene in a public park. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that supreme courts across the country have time and time again ruled that individuals, groups, cults, or whatever else should not, and are not allowed, to post appeals to specific faiths in public places; and if they do this, it is an invitation for an open forum for other groups to display their view in that place. (As an example http://ffrf.org/news/releases/lacrossewin2/ Granted, this was not in Utah)
I have not seen this, as I don’t have class on Friday, but this really does make me quite annoyed. It’s almost enough for me to go get approval to scribble things on sidewalks such as, “God is just pretend” or, in the words of Mark Twain, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so,” or just take a bucket of water up there and wash the chalk off.
It isn’t the same thing as the Ten Commandments in the capital building. In that instance the state is essentially endorsing a particular religion, which is a violation of the establishment clause. In this case the state is effectively acting as a venue for others to voice their beliefs which is a different scenario (however if they were to allow one group to voice their beliefs but banned another group it is the same as tacitly endorsing a particular view).
Generally I don’t have a problem stating their beliefs (with some boundries), but little things like this remind me that while legally we are allowed to believe as we will, their is often societal intolerance. Specifically, if you went to some campus authority about this they would likely think you were overreacting, however if you had similarly written “There is probably no God so stop worrying and be happy” the authorities would pay much more attention to complaints about that (and it would probably be scuffed away fairly quickly). The inequality is what I object to, and while folks are quick to blame the new athiests (a retarded term – people have been vocal critics of religion for ages, at least when they weren’t burned at the stake for it) as being overly adversarial to religion I would contend that it is a natural, if unfortunate, response to the adversarial tone of Christianity towards all other beliefs in this country. What I object to with chalkings like this is the general presumption that it is reasonable, while any contrary views are not.
If people were tolerant of non-christian views – if that chalking could exist along side an athiest motto, scripture from the koran, and a nice picture of Odin hanging from Yggdrasil with a spear piercing his side, and folks were equally tolerant of all of them, I would have no issue with it. The fact that such is not true, that the christian scripture is tolerated but vocal parts of society cannot stand the others, is the real issue I have. Everyone should feel safe voicing their beliefs, this included, but unfortunately that is not the case in our society.
Universities tend to hold to “view-point neutrality” principle. What that means is that universities try to avoid taking a position on much of anything. This is a good – universities should be places where there is a free and unfettered exchange of ideas. Were the administration to stifle any of this speech (or take an official position on something that might discourage research/speech), that would be a harm to academic freedom and to the exercise of free thought generally.
So there is nothing unconstitutional about that sidewalk chalk. The campus allows Eli to preach outside of the TSC all the time. They would equally allow you SHAFTers to stand out on the quad making claims and arguments against Mormonism (or whatever else).
I am not as skeptical as Josh. If a SHAFTer wrote “There is probably no God so stop worrying and be happy” on the sidewalk, I sincerely believe the administration would treat this no differently than the religious chalkwork. Keep in mind, the university officially recognizes SHAFT as a student group on campus, allowing SHAFT to use university facilities and such things. Some students might wipe it off the atheist chalk-talk, but the administration wouldn’t.
The only real exception to viewpoint neutrality are campus hate speech codes. In those cases, the university abandons viewpoint neutrality (taking the position that racism is wrong, for instance). But it does so to serve a greater end – providing a safe learning environment for students of all sorts. This becomes a balancing act and it is not always clear how to navigate and balance these two competing ends. Stanford’s speech code is something of a model. To be hate speech on the Stanford code, 1) speech must intend insult/stigmatize 2) speech must be directed at those whom it intends to stigmatize 3) speech must employ epithets or terms that convey visceral hate.
USU’s code is similar, though the code for residents (people who voluntarily choose to live in campus housing) is considerably more strict. It includes the mandate the residents respect the “dignity of all persons, by not demeaning, teasing, ridiculing, or insulting individuals or groups”.
For my part, I wish there was more of this “sidewalk chalk debate”. It is one manifestation of an intellectually lively campus community. At my college there was a large rock right outside the Commons that was painted nearly every night with all kinds of political and philosophical positions. It became a centerpiece for a considerable amount of heated but also deep intellectual discussion.
@Kleiner -
I lived in Memphis for a couple of years before moving here, so my cynicism is much more informed by that locale than this. It is perhaps unfair to hold on to the same experience here when generally the area is much more accepting then the south. That said, on a national level there are some amazingly vocal mouth pieces of the religious right that are very good at whipping up a fervor against opposing points of view (see reactions to bus ads and billboard signs with an athiest message, or the outrage of Faux News when athiests set up a diaroma on the capital steps in Olympia Washington), and I don’t think it unfair to say that societally some messages are much more tolerated than others, for no reason other than belief.
Though in the neutral stance of universities, I completely agree. My lament is not that such a message is written, but that society as a whole can’t be as neutral. I do, however, wish the hate speach code was more universally applied on campuses. At my university every fall and spring some hate mongering minister of the same stripes as Fred Phelps would show up on campus with his gaggle of goose stepping followers, a bull horn, and signs proclaiming damnation and hate for every demographic they could think to target (among those called out were Homosexuals [not the term they used], Athiests, Witches [they got a cool little graphic], Feminists, and pencil necked, weak knee’d intellectuals). It is a testemant to the student population that the guy was never assaulted, but for the days he was there the entire campus had a palpatable anxiety to it.
And you’re perfectly free to do so Adam, assuming you’re allowed to write on the sidewalks at all in any format. That’s freedom of speech, the government doesn’t have to give you a podium, but it can’t restrict a proper assembly or expression. They can write christian stuff, you can write what you want, I can quote the Eddas and draw pentagrams and hammers. I don’t know why you think there’s such a divide there, they were simply more energetic in that regard than you. I don’t mind that its christian, jewish, scientologist, I might not even mind if it were jedi, I just mind that its ugly, a waste of time, and hard to see anyway. I don’t mind living next to a christian church (The Holy Trinity Lutheran church near my place), I just mind having to see the post modern monstrosity. If it were closer to say the Cathedral of Madeline or Presbyterian church near to that I’d be fine.
I definitely get annoyed by the attacking style of free speech a la Fred Phelps (see Josh’s comment). Courteous discussion and sympathetic humility on all sides is appreciated. As far as the scripture verse scribble — it seems to be in the positive speech category and not in the attacking category. I am ok with it and an equally proactive SHAFT response.
I’m with Kleiner in wanting more of this “chalk-talk.” The more speech, the better. This school is in desperate need of controversy, as evidenced by the fact that “chalk-talk” counts as controversial here ha ha.
I was thrilled when Eli first came to our campus to preach back in Fall 2007, for instance. Before then, there was next to no dialogue about religion at USU—constructive or otherwise.
My only real beef with the existence of these chalk quotes is that SHAFT was repeatedly told as a group that sidewalk chalking was not allowed. So we didn’t do it. There’s possibly a double-standard here, unless the group responsible for today’s chalking just did it without permission.
That was probably what ticked me off the most, that we were told we couldn’t write anything. I suspect no one asked for permission. I know for a fact that I have seen some USU thing that said chalking was allowed, so maybe they were going off of that? I think a response on the sidewalks wouldn’t be terrible.
I was going to call you out for an overreaction, but if you were told you couldn’t chalk I could see why you’d be upset at the apparent hypocrisy. Since chalking doesn’t damage anything, will go with the rain, and won’t give anyone any trouble (as long as it doesn’t insult or stigmatize or whatever), it seems like a perfectly acceptable medium of expression. Although I don’t think your chalking needs to be as pretty as Will does, remember that contrast is your friend.
Good one Source, haha, I do tend to get a bit reactive with art, perhaps overly so. I like comic art, I just think too often the stuff just looks like graffiti, a pissing contest for humans who are still in their monkey stage.
As for the ruling, I’m not sure, but I don’t think you can get permission, it seems people may do this under the guise of night, that one near the TSC (by the way fellow conservatives, or at least those who claim to be conservative, the LOL with Obama’s logo in the middle looks retarded) was certainly not done while a lot of traffic was near.
I’d be fine with a response, though since these are usually quotes perhaps a good thoughtful response is best. I only say that since I see the same thing in bathroom stalls or something where people just cross it out and say You suk jrk fucer! or something, and the people I know in Shaft are capable of better.
But then, if its not allowed, its not allowed. You can’t beat a thief by robbing him, eh OJ?
As long as they don’t discriminate between atheist and religious chalk messages, they should be free to do so. It would be an interesting experiment to see how long a secular message would last.
I, Mike, hereby grant anyone non-exclusive distribution rights for sidewalk display of the sayings of mike.
If any of you Shafters are still worried over this and a free or fair speech/expression here on campus, I’ll try to settle your heads by reminding you all I have a radio show here that often has music that is anti christian if not outright satanic or otherwise incendiary. I have to keep things under stupid FCC regs but other than that I’ve been given the utmost freedom to speak my mind (whenever it makes sense) and play what I want. There’s no mormon specific station but there are lds kids as djs too, and from overhearing them while doing music screening, they’re pretty devout and neo con. The culture may have a majority that would wipe your writings off quicker, but there are plenty of examples of expression being allowed. Trust me, if they haven’t thrown me out of the school, they aren’t going to bother with you guys.
I’m not concerned about discrimination from the administration. What does concern me is the occasional person who I wonder about. It most certainly annoys me that I’m ever in the position where discrimination crosses my mind. As it pertains to the chalk: I don’t think this has anything to do with the administration. I think someone just did it, unaware of regulations.
I noticed the scripture quotes as well, I have also seen other messages on the sidewalks. One that I though was funny was the Flying Spaghetti Monster which someone drew at the point where the sidewalks cross on the Quad with a little ‘scripture’ with it.
Other sidewalk chalking’s that I have seen this week which do bug me slightly are the ones that got placed right where the Preachers set up. Which tell them(The Preachers) how they disapprove of them being on campus and calling them out, signing it with the name IRTYD if I am recalling correctly (I’d Rather That you Didn’t). The reason this bugs me isn’t because they are calling out the preachers, I couldn’t care less, but because they didn’t even have stones to write their name down. Where I grew up if you called someone out you should at least let them know who you are. Eli and the other preacher are putting themselves out there saying what they believe, and they aren’t popular for it I’ve heard plenty of people talk bad about them for it. I don’t agree with them, or believe in their god, and the message of him which they are selling, but I respect them for being adults about it, and not hiding behind secret chalking’s and fake names.