To:Wesleyan Student Assembly
From:Doug Bennet
Date:April 2, 2004
Subject:WSA Resolution on Chalking
I am responding to your March 28, 2004, Chalking Resolution. The resolution reiterates last year’s recommendation that chalking be permitted on sidewalks but that there be an administrative remedy available to individuals who feel harassed by individual graffiti. It provides that individuals named in the chalkings could ask the Affirmative Action Office to have their names erased. It also identifies 15 alternate means of communication students can use in addition to chalking. After considering the issue for several months, I decided that banning chalking and relying on alternate media for communication would promote, rather than curtail, campus discourse. The WSA’s resolution states that “the ban has stifled specific contentious ideas and freedom of speech in general” and that “there exists no alternative form of communication that adequately fills chalking’s expressive functions.”
The background to last year’s decision was that chalking had been used at Wesleyan for several years, first for advertising events, then for political messages. When the messages became both threatening and sexually explicit, a moratorium on chalking was imposed. The moratorium and the events that followed prompted a year of campus debate, and, within the administration, a very thorough and careful reassessment of some basic assumptions about how we best serve Wesleyan’s academic mission.
As I wrote in my final report to the campus, “We must satisfy two complementary principles: to protect free expression and at the same time to enhance Wesleyan’s civility. Both are essential to the academic process and to true dialogue. Freedom of expression is a fundamental value on campus. Civility helps enable all voices to be heard. Returning to the status quo, with threatening, often sexually explicit chalking on the sidewalks, does not meet the civility test.”1
The freedom of speech aspect of the chalking issue was carefully considered in last year’s debate. There was a strong sense that Wesleyan should avoid a speech code, whereby we would permit chalking but limit the content of what was written. The Code of Non-Academic Conduct regulates “posters, banners, announcements, and other forms of communication” without limiting their content. The relevant section of the student handbook states: “The purpose of a University-wide policy on banners, announcements of events, and other forms of communication is to protect freedom of expression (italics added) while encouraging respect for University property and the appearance of the campus.”2 These provisions provide freedom of expression because they do not control content and because they encourage the use of other media.
My belief was that the chalking ban could help channel debate and expression in directions more consonant with Wesleyan’s fundamental academic mission—to the many campus publications and forums where conversation occurs daily in unfettered ways but with greater accountability. I believe that, if we look back over the year since the ban became effective, we have seen open, energetic debate about all the topics—from the politics of gender and sexuality to those of the Middle East conflict—with which a university community would expect to concern itself. The venues in which these debates are held—from the Argus to the lecture hall—are open to all. Ideas and opinions are tested in the view of the entire community. Authorship is clear. The arguments that carry the day are usually the strongest and the best grounded in evidence and logic. Discussants learn to engage each other respectfully if they wish their arguments to be heard.
In contrast, chalking tended to be one-sided. To the extent that it was anonymous, it skirted accountability to its audience. One argument advanced for chalking was that it was more likely than other media to get attention, but, while the freedom to express oneself fully is important, no one is entitled to a captive audience.
Making the best use of alternate media is a work in progress. The WSA is working with the administration to review the availability of traditional bulletin boards and the feasibility of adding electronic communication services to provide new opportunities for event promotion and public discourse.
I hope this review of the issues surrounding chalking will give the campus a frame of reference regarding the chalking ban. I know many of you have disagreed with my decision, but it was made in good faith after thorough consideration. I respectfully decline to implement the WSA’s resolution.
(Footnotes)
1Campus Email: Chalking, May 12, 2003.
2 2003-2004 Student Handbook, Section IV, pg. 143.
Leave a Reply