Civil discourse never begins with “F- you,” let alone between anonymous parties using spray paint. Contrary to what Kevin Tao asserts in his Oct. 2 letter to the editor, the individuals who painted over the hateful graffiti on the bridge weren’t censoring an opposing viewpoint. Rather, they were taking a stand for fairness and respect when discussing sensitive issues, and they then invited anyone in the Duke community to have a real civil discourse on LGBT issues via the My Truth Panels. I can’t imagine a more appropriate response than this. The fact that they took pictures of the graffiti, helped bring the entire University’s attention to the graffiti via Zoilla Airall’s e-mail, and then restated the graffiti in a letter to The Chronicle hardly constitutes censorship of the opposition’s message.
Tao also tries to pin the bridge painters into a false paradox of being intolerant of intolerance. Though for most people this goes without saying, tolerance is not an umbrella term that lends itself to annihilation by self-contradiction. People who promote tolerance also shun acts of intolerance and hate. This is not hypocritical—it’s logically consistent.
I do agree with Tao on one point: “we should strive to be living examples of what our groups stand for.” It worries me that a member of our own Honor Council could so grossly misapply the Duke Community Standard and go so far as to label the individuals who acted to uphold fairness and respect as uncivil hypocrites.
Finally, to those who agree with the sentiment of the offensive graffiti but are afraid to hurt anyone’s feelings by discussing LGBT issues, please request a meeting with a My Truth Panel. We welcome any and all opportunities to discuss LGBT issues in a respectful environment.
Nick Altemose
Trinity ’11
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.