This past Tuesday, Wesleyan University’s student newspaper, "The Wesleyan Argus," published an opinion piece titled "Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think." In it, the author postulates that while the BLM movement has noble intentions, it has had the unfortunate side effect of creating a hostile and violent environment for law enforcement. The piece draws a direct correlation between the recent murders of police officers and the proliferation of BLM’s ideals.
While we do not agree with the central thesis of the article, it was written in a respectful, non-inflammatory manner — it did not damn the raison d’être of BLM, nor did its content constitute anything resembling hateful speech or racism. Additionally, as a submitted opinions piece, it did not represent the views of the Argus as a whole.
The Student Body of Wesleyan saw it differently. Following the article’s publication, a petition circulated calling for a boycott of the paper as well as for it to lose its Student Government funding. The petition calls for individuals to destroy copies of the Argus until its demands are met. The petition and its proponents have gotten even more inflammatory than that, but we only have so much room to print.
Most of us at the Alligator willingly identify as progressive — we believe that significant inequalities exist in American society that require redress, and we believe the government and civil society ought to work in tandem to benefit all citizens, regardless of race, religion, income level, ideology or sexuality.
With that stated, we have to ask — what has happened to liberal and progressive ideals? When did it become acceptable to use bullying and intimidation tactics to get points across? How can young men and women, in ostensibly fighting to improve the lives of others, possibly think that hateful rhetoric serves to better the world around them? How does widening the ideological divide between Americans act in service of achieving a more fair and just world?
Moral outrage and calls for censorship were once thought of as strictly conservative stratagems — the days of burning Beatles records, claiming that "The Simpsons" destroys family values and the decrying of black musicians for corrupting the nation’s youth are long behind us, and that’s generally accepted as a good thing. Liberal activists who fought for the free expression of self and the expansion of rights defined the 20th century; why have their 21st-century equivalents adopted the methodology of those their intellectual forebears fought against?
The extremism demonstrated by Wesleyan students does not, and cannot, define progressive ideals. The actions of these individuals undermine and devalue the worthy causes they claim to fight for. It is up to those young liberals who believe in discourse, the effectiveness of policy making and open discussion to decry these actions and truly embody the ideals that progressivism advocates for.
We stand for more visibility and increased valuing of the lives of people of color. We stand for serious and comprehensive changes to be made to American policing. What we do not, will not and cannot stand for is arm-twisting tactics and censorship meant to dictate the speech of others.
