Hate-speech should not be tolerated

Although I do not want to bring more attention to the act of vandalism on the East Campus bridge, I cannot help but respond to the Oct. 2 letter to the editor regarding this incident.

As my father always says, “Tolerate everything except intolerance.”  What was written on the bridge was intolerant, hateful and hurtful. For someone to suggest that the messages written on the bridge were actually gestures of friendly debate is shocking. What was written on the bridge was hate speech, plain and simple. To suggest that the LGBTQ community and its allies should have to construct a “thought-out response” and paint it on the bridge next to an obviously not well thought-out message of anger and hate is offensive. What civil discourse can begin with “F- this rainbow” or “F- gay pride?” I cannot envision those remarks leading to some sort of intellectual discourse. There is no “counterargument” when someone says “F- you.” What would the individual(s) who left the original comment want to debate, anyway? Do they not like the rainbow as a symbol for gay pride? Or do they just believe that LGBTQ individuals shouldn’t be able to celebrate their pride? Either way, the potential for debate in this situation seems quite slim. If the individual(s) who wrote that message are looking for a debate, then maybe they can do it without the protection of anonymity, by responding to these columns explaining their actions and the reasoning behind them. If civil discourse was indeed their goal, this would be the opportunity to make it happen.    

My only hope is that the event and the subsequent response of support (not censorship) have sparked productive conversation among students about these issues. And on a personal note, I do understand that when you act you represent the group you belong to, which is why I am proud to be represented by a community of scholars who acted swiftly and firmly in response to a targeted act of hate on campus.     

Lisa Bevilacqua

Trinity ’10