Chalking and Free Speech

The incident here brings up some issues that have yet to be resolved. What chalking should be erased and which should be allowed to stay? The GSA chalked first, expressing their pride and encouraging others to be prideful as well. Their chalking was meant to be uplifting and inspirational to others, and while some were offended because of their beliefs, the chalking was not meant to be taken that way. The chalking by the anonymous group, however, was meant to be offensive. The passage from the bible is fine because it is not meant to be offensive; it is simply a quote expressing another belief. The more vulgar rebuttals were meant to offend and therefore were rightly erased. The people who did that chalking obviously knew they were doing something wrong or they would not have remained anonymous. If even the people who do the action realize that it is wrong and hateful, then there is obviously a responsibility by the school to erase those chalking.

The college should erase chalking that has the intention to offend and express hate. Disrespectful terms should not be allowed, and if it is determined that the chalker intended to offend than that chalking should be erased. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but it should be done in a respectful way. It is likely that anything written will offend someone, simply because everyone has different opinions and beliefs. A chalking that offends one person should not be removed if it is not meant in an offensive way. A chalking that offends an entire group that is not meant to be offensive should also be removed, because unintentional hate speech is still hate speech. In general, if a chalking is meant to be offensive and has hateful overtones it should be erased, while those that are expressing an opinion in a respectful manner should be allowed to stay, which leads me to the belief that Ursinus did the right thing when they decided which chalkings to allow to stay.