When two UF fraternity members wore blackface to a party in the fall of 2012, they sparked a campuswide discussion about racism. Sadly, some students strayed from this thoughtful dialogue by pushing for the university to ban blackface on campus.
It may sound strange to describe the proposed ban as sad, considering blackface is widely recognized as an ignorant, racist symbol.
The calls for censorship are disheartening, though, because they suggest some students don’t appreciate an aspect of free speech: the difference between agreeing with how someone expresses himself and supporting his right to expression.
Think of the First Amendment as a microphone in a karaoke bar. Some people use it in shameful ways, but as long as they’re not being extremely disruptive or violent, you have to let them sing. You’ll have your turn to deliver a comeback performance.
One problem with banning speech simply because it’s offensive is that the ban may swoop up other forms of expression. For example, a blanket ban on blackface could prevent students who produce plays and movies from using the costume as social commentary.
This principle popped up recently as I was talking to my friend, who is gay, about a case involving homophobic protesters. In 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested the funeral of a U.S. Marine, waving signs that read “God hates f--s.”
The Marine’s father sued the church’s founder and a few other protesters, claiming they meant to cause him extreme emotional distress. My friend and I agreed the signs had tormented the father. Given the facts, we were initially shocked to learn the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in the church’s favor.
Westboro protested peacefully on a sidewalk about three football fields away from the funeral. The subject of their protest — gay Americans serving in the military — was considered a social and political issue, a type of speech strongly protected by the First Amendment.
Although Westboro’s signs were evil, the Supreme Court would have contributed to an even greater evil if it had set a precedent for interfering with legal protests. The Westboro ruling and last fall’s blackface case taught me that defending our freedom of speech isn’t always easy. Sometimes we have to let the values of the Constitution override our personal opinions, which means sticking up for others’ freedom to verbalize seemingly ignorant and frustrating ideas.
“Wait a minute,” you might think. It’s one thing to defend speech that serves a purpose, but there’s no value in waving a homophobic sign or wearing blackface on Halloween.
In these cases, when symbols and words appear to lack value, we have to remember that value is subjective. If you’ve ever been in a heated debate about an issue like gun control or abortion, you’ve probably met folks across the political aisle who thought your ideas were worthless. Fortunately, their assessment alone can’t stop you from speaking.
Because the display of blackface last fall was protected by the First Amendment, the right thing to do was to speak up, not silence the speakers. Most students rightly used it as a chance to educate others about the historical and cultural meanings of blackface, hosting town forums and posting hundreds of comments online.
The takeaway for me was that wearing blackface is morally wrong, but students should be allowed to wear it. Chief Justice John Roberts explained this distinction eloquently as he announced the Court’s opinion in the Westboro case.
“Speech is powerful,” Roberts said. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and...inflict great pain...we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course...”
Cody Romano is a public relations senior. His columns usually appear Thursdays.
