<p>“the area is only getting more blue on this and other issues.”</p>
<p>Chicago getting more blue? As a fellow Chicagoan I’m pretty sure I can say that if it got any more blue around here we’d all be violet.</p>
<p>Maybe the oompah loompahs will come and roll us all to the juicing room.</p>
<p>“You’re turning violet, Violet” </p>
<p>I mean, I think we’re all agreeing. Students should be allowed to voice their political opinions, but students shouldn’t have to be subjected to grotesque and offensive images. The question is just whether this poster met the latter qualifications. </p>
<p>But the question is how does the University gauge “grotesque and offensive images”? As mentioned in the many articles, the University has allowed nudity and simulated bloodstained glass.</p>
<p>At best the suppression of messages are arbitrarily applied, at worst it is politically motivated.</p>
<p>Many people are offended by sexually suggestive images and many other provocative images that are all over campus. If one person says they are offended does that automatically disqualify a display? If so then they will have to eliminate the whole idea of public displays.</p>
<p>gstudent99 - you are technically correct, I should have said “Chicagoland”, not Chicago. The commuter trains I mentioned (out of Ogilvie and Union stations - which is where there is the chokepoint due to having to cross the bridge over the Chicago river) serve suburban riders almost exclusively. Almost every political analyst points to the suburbs turning from solid red to purpleish/blue (due to “social issues”) as the reason why a certain party has seized control of all branches of government in the state.</p>
<p>radomparent - when these events happen in Chicago, there are multiple police officers on every block. There are huge billboards with the grotesque images about every 15 feet for 4-5 city blocks. The police are there to protect the demonstrators (since the first time they did this, some counter-protestors decided to take matters into their own hands) and/or arrest them if they move off the public part of the sidewalk and onto private property - since the office building managers are none to pleased when these protests happen. </p>
<p>Anyone who has worked in the “Loop” for any period of time, and takes the train, has probably seen these displays and honestly, after you have seen it a couple of times, you become desensitized. The problem is that grizzled office workers aren’t the only people seeing this protest. Multiple protests are held every summer when thousands of young children and their parents come downtown on the “choo-choo” train for a day in the city for shopping or museum visits. Its especially these parents, that are forced to literally run the gauntlet to reach the train to take them home. Causing these suburban parents this distress does nothing to help the pro life cause and may actually cause some open minded persons to dismiss supporters as “wackos”. </p>
<p>'I mean, I think we’re all agreeing. Students should be allowed to voice their political opinions, but students shouldn’t have to be subjected to grotesque and offensive images. The question is just whether this poster met the latter qualifications."<br>
I am agree that students should be allowed to voice their political opinions, but not agreeing that they shouldn’t be “subjected to grotesque and offensive images”. AS gsstudent99 points out, who decides on “grotesque” and “offensive”, and how is the current decision to remove the display not arbitrary and potentially motivated by political views</p>
<p>ChicagoBear, I work in the building above Ogilvie, so I am familiar with the area you describe, but have never seen the displays you find objectionable. Isn’t it a shame that the Chicago police have to protect those who are peacefully expressing their views? Again, good on Chicago for allowing free expression, and also again I have seen nothing to indicate that the display at UA was significantly comparable to the Chicago protests you object to.</p>
<p>As for the protest doing “nothing to help the cause of the protestors”, I really don’t have the info to judge the accuracy of that assertion, and I suspect neither do you. I do understand that those images cause intense cognitive dissonance in some people, just as images of severe animal cruelty in the production of animal food products causes intense cognitive dissonance in some people. Perhaps rather than hardening their hearts, they should step back and examine the feelings that are driving the cognitive dissonance. I do understand and am sympathetic to the children who witness the displays, but also understand that not everything can be perfect in a free society and am glad that each of those children was able to walk past those posters rather than be the subject of the poster.</p>
<p>@ChicagoBear - I’ve worked in the loop for over 20 years and commuted through both Ogilvie and Union. In my half hour walk I have to pass an amazing array of things that I have had to desensitize myself to. Anyone going to Chicago, or any big city, should be prepared to have to explain some things to their children.</p>
<p>My daughter, now at UA, took the Metra to school every day. She was standing 10 feet from a man who committed suicide by jumping in front of an express train. We had to throw away her clothes.</p>
<p>Despite that, my daughter loves the city more that I could express but mostly because it is “alive” with everything that the human experience brings.</p>
<p>A dynamic college should be alive in the same way. Anyone going to a large, diverse university should expect and, I would argue, demand to be offended at times.</p>
<p>Slightly off topic but I remember a conversation with my son about the TV show South Park. We agreed that anyone not offended by South Park must not care about anything.</p>
<p>The University of Alabama thrives on people of passion. People with passion will offend and be offended.</p>
<p>Maybe the only thing offensive enough to ban from campus is anything with an Auburn logo. </p>
<p>Why do I need to know you personally? I’m going off what you wrote, and that’s it. And the fact remains, this is nothing new.</p>
<p>“Why do I need to know you personally? I’m going off what you wrote, and that’s it. And the fact remains, this is nothing new.”
Because you presumed to assert that my objections were “just because it occurred with an issue you happen to support”. If you knew me at all, you would know that my objections are driven by much broader concerns than abortion. But, if it somehow helps you to attribute my objections to a concern for abortion rather than for broader concerns for open discussion and free expression, particularly on college campuses, so be it. </p>
<p>“who decides on ‘grotesque’ and ‘offensive’, and how is the current decision to remove the display not arbitrary and potentially motivated by political views”</p>
<p>no one decides on what is considered grotesque and offensive, but we can make certain assumptions based on what is accepted in our society…</p>
<p>not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates my point: you can go to a theater and see a film with nudity and simulated violence. you cannot go to a theater and see a snuff film.
there aren’t partisan political views driving that regulation. there’s no agenda behind prohibiting snuff films. so, why does the decision to remove pictures of corpses on campus have to be looked at politically? i’m not saying politics had nothing to do with it… just that it seems some people are quick to assume a false causality.</p>
<p>According to this report, UA is aware and reviewing their policies with respect to displays at the Ferg, but it appears that the stated rationale, no offensive or graphic material, isn’t stated in the current policy for displays in the Ferg. Quote from the linked article:
“While the Fergunson Student Center’s policy governing the display cases has prohibitions against displays of combustible materials, ammunition, firearms, alcoholic beverages or representations of those items, the guidelines do not spell out any bans of offensive or graphic material.”</p>
<p><a href=“Fire departments ask residents to clear snow away from fire hydrants”>Fire departments ask residents to clear snow away from fire hydrants; </p>
<p>Assaulting us with grotesque and offensive material is not the answer.
Should Pro-Choice counter this propaganda by showing teenage girls
hacked-up by garage clinic quacks? I hope and pray that these pictures
are not available because that sad alternative is no longer an option for
our children. My $.02</p>
<p>It appears that the display did have pictures of Kermit Goshnel, not sure if there were any pictures of his butchery, but the display was clearly also trying to make the point that there are still “garage clinic quacks” despite state regulations that are supposed to prevent such things. To bad that information was removed by UA. On the larger, and more important issue of free expression and open debate, again who gets to decide what is “grotesque and offensive”?</p>
<p>@Yorba2Bama. But the issue is whether any group is allowed to present their message as they see fit, not whether the message is deemed effective. </p>
<p>If a pro-choice/pro-abortion group wants to present their message as you propose they should be allowed to.</p>
<p>I just learned that the president of Bama Students for Life will be on Fox News tomorrow to discuss the issue.</p>
<p>Randomparent, excellent and thoughtful posts. Thanks. </p>
<p>The point really isn’t whether each of us is pro-life or pro-choice or whether females would have “back alleys” as alternatives. This is a free speech issue. Some aspects of life are grotesque. This isn’t a K-12 environment. This is an environment for adults. anyone offended by any image can turn their heads. </p>
<p>The problem is this isn’t likely being equally applied. I’m sure that anti-smoking folks can come up with some grotesque pictures, too, and I doubt that those would be removed. </p>
<p>Pictures of wartime, slavery, the Holocaust, animal abuse, child abuse, etc, are horrible, shocking, etc. But those aren’t censored.</p>
<p>This was a political censoring…no doubt.</p>
<p>^ Well stated.</p>
<p>And UA apologizes</p>
<p><a href=“http://cw.ua.edu/2014/02/17/ferguson-center-director-issues-apology-to-anti-abortion-group/”>Discovering Alabama series wins Emmy award - The Crimson White;
<p>Well done.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Free speech returns.</p>
<p>Glad to see the apology from UA and the graceful acceptance from those whose speech was suppressed. I wonder what is being done by UA to help prevent similar suppression in the future.</p>