<p>Very disappointed to see this occurring at UA, or any other campus for that matter. Quote from the linked report: “An administrator at the University of Alabama removed the pro-life display of Bama Students for Life last week without notification, claiming that some students found the display “offensive.””</p>
<p>There was a similar decision made at FSU several years ago. It’s a difficult issue as many of the huge pro life displays show gruesome pics. I err in favor of free speech, but UA is far from the only school to restrict these images.</p>
<p>Interesting to watch the video of the administrator, who appears to say that if anyone finds anything objectionable, then that thing has to be removed. That’s a broad standard and I doubt that it really is enforced as she stated because it would allow every person to have a one person veto over what is displayed, or even what is allowed to occur, in the Ferg. That it occurs at other colleges doesn’t make it any less objectionable at UA. </p>
<p>Perhaps the downside to the increasing proportion of out-of-state students? And I say that as a California native who finally took my money and left my increasingly fascist and corrupt home state. Of course, the complaints were probably made anonymously, so we may never know which pro-choice complainers have such weak stomachs and cannot handle the truth, which, like it or not, is depicted accurately in those gruesome images. Beyond that, though, a university needs to be a place where free speech is protected, and not just the speech of tenured professors, and where ideas can be expressed and debated out in the open (and, yes, I do mean all ideas, even those ideas I may personally disagree with - I am not afraid of open debate.) I sure do hope the University of Alabama, as a whole, still has the guts to handle free speech, even if that event coordinator lacked the guts, otherwise it becomes just another useless liberal, progressive, fascist ivory tower. That would be a shame.</p>
<p>“Interesting to watch the video of the administrator, who appears to say that if anyone finds anything objectionable, then that thing has to be removed. T”</p>
<p>BS…if someone finds the administrator to be objectionable…is that person going to be removed. ;)</p>
<p>Let’s see what orgns come foward to defend. The ACLU? probably not. </p>
<p>It also appears that there was no attempt to contact the organization to inform them that someone had objected to their display and to provide the organization with an opportunity to remove the objectionable material or to contest the objection. I will truly be surprised if it turns out that the administrator was actually enforcing UA policy as intended by UA. If she was, there is a huge problem at UA with respect to it being a free marketplace of ideas.</p>
<p>Well, I hope this group goes around lodging complaints about any little thing that they find “objectionable” so that the Student Union can continue to be a “happy place”. lol</p>
<p>“I will truly be surprised if it turns out that the administrator was actually enforcing UA policy as intended by UA. If she was, there is a huge problem at UA with respect to it being a free marketplace of ideas.”</p>
<p>That may be so. It may be just one administrator taking it upon herself to create a policy and selectively enforce.</p>
<p>this group should “test” this policy with some other posters to see what happens.</p>
<p>First, let me emphasize that I understand the concept of free speech and the fact that I go to a public university, where people can say whatever they want.</p>
<p>Now, I agree that universities are where free speech and open debate should be encouraged. However…</p>
<p>some of these protests go seemingly only for shock value, and it’s hard to see anything beyond that. A picture of an aborted fetus doesn’t count as a valid point in the ongoing debate. It’s essentially anti-intellectualism and it’s the opposite of what a “college experience” is supposed to provide. It doesn’t stimulate intelligent conversations about the topic of abortion. Yes, i understand it is the truth. i also understand that on a fundamental level, its intended purpose isn’t information, it’s shock value and propaganda.</p>
<p>so, when i see things like this on my campus, i’m not offended… but i do feel like my intelligence has been insulted. i came to this school to experience new ideas and opinions, not to have them rubbed in my face by way of some pretty disturbing images. i’m sure many other students feel the same way and some spoke up.</p>
<p>Saying another side’s speech “doesn’t count as a valid point”, is “anti-intellectualism” and is "the opposite of what a ‘college experience’ is supposed to provide, and then speaking “up” to College administrators that the speech has insulted one’s intelligence doesn’t strike me as a really good way to encourage open speech and debate. To the contrary, it strikes me as a rather concerted effort to marginalize both the views of the other side and the expression of those views. Perhaps, if one is truly wishing for open speech and debate, one would take a step back and sincerely consider how those on the other side of the debate might actually see their speech as a valid point that actually challenges the intelligence and/or moral certitude of the other side. </p>
<p>For example, PETA puts out videos that highlight the extreme cruelty that can occur in order to put animal products on our plate for our culinary pleasures. If one happens to greatly enjoy eating animal products, viewing these video can cause extreme cognitive dissonance and one could respond by asserting that such videos “don’t count as a valid point”, are “anti-intellectualism”, are "the opposite of what a "college experience’ is supposed to provide, and then complain (aka “speak up”) to FACEBOOK and college IT administrators to inform them that the videos have insulted your intelligence. Or, one could sincerely consider that PETA believes that the videos are an important expression of their views, suffer the cognitive dissonance caused by viewing the videos, and explore that cognitive dissonance a little deeper to determine if it actually reveals something about one’s self, if not about PETA. FWIW, my son became a vegan while at UA, and watching PETA videos and exploring his own cognitive dissonance played a part in his decision. Graphic images can be very compelling.</p>
<p>Let’s hope the university administration gives this issue the same attention they gave to issues with sororities at the beginning of the year. I would like to hear from the university president that they will not suppress student speech.</p>
<p>I can say without a doubt that Dr. Bonner is very approachable. She even called me on a Saturday morning to respond to my call when the Sorority mess was on her plate. She had no idea if I was a big donor or not, but took time to call anyway. </p>
<p>For the record, last year Bama Students for Life brought a large roadshow to campus. a day or so before the event, UA informed students that potentially offensive pictures would be displayed on the quad, but denied permits for counter protests because they weren’t submitted far enough in advance despite the fact that students weren’t notified in advance of the permit filing deadline.</p>
<p>There are other instances of UA questionably applying policies in regards to legal student events. Like many universities, UA reserves the right to restrict potentially objectionable events to certain areas on campus.</p>
<p>Lol, the university’s been controlling speech on its private property long before they did something you find objectionable just because it occurred with an issue you happen to support. </p>
<p>And, yes, I’m pretty sure Dr. Bonner is fully aware of the display. The Ferg’s not some distance krai in Siberia.</p>
<p>There is a group that pulls this type of “stunt” in downtown Chicago about twice a year. They line the only sidewalks leading to the largest commuter train stations - so you have to walk by. Based upon the conversations I’ve overheard on the trains after they have had to “run the gauntlet”, most people, on both sides of the issue, believe the display tends to hurt the pro life cause. The images won’t change the mind of a hard core pro choice person, and the method only seems to infuriate moderate/independents on this issue. They question whether they should ever support people who would put on such a display. </p>
<p>Edit - after puting on these displays for years, the area is only getting more blue on this and other issues. </p>
<p>“Lol, the university’s been controlling speech on its private property long before they did something you find objectionable just because it occurred with an issue you happen to support.” LOL, you don’t know me well enough to understand my motives, but if it makes you feel better, keep casting aspersions. </p>
<p>“There is a group that pulls this type of “stunt” in downtown Chicago about twice a year. . . .” It isn’t my impression that the display was dominated by the photos the administrator found objectionable, nor is it my impression that the display was located at a commuting choke point, or that it somehow made anyone “run the gauntlet”. Having said that, good on the City of Chicago for allowing them to express their views. Interesting to see that a street here in Chicago is more accepting of free and open debate than the hallways of UA, also interesting to see the support in this thread for suppression of speech. </p>