The bridge is at the center of controversy again.
Duke’s bridge painting policy is not detailed, but it does prevent censorship.
“The bridge on Campus Drive is a place where groups and individuals from Duke can express opinions that are not restricted by content, except by legal standards. The bridge will not be censored for content by the University,” states the Office of the University Registrar Web site. The bridge’s many messages are entirely left in our hands.
But what do we want the bridge to be? Is it really an open forum or just an untraditional billboard?
For starters, the bridge is not located in a secluded corner of campus. Duke students, staff and guests riding the C-1 bus from East to West, and vice versa, have no choice but to see the painted walls of the bridge, advertising fraternity parties, civic engagement projects and specially designated weeks of activism. If the bridge can reflect on Duke poorly to both outsiders and insiders, should the paint jobs contain words or images that can be interpreted as hurtful?
In the 2005 Supreme Court case, Van Orden v. Perry, a homeless man (Van Orden) protested the presence of a very large Ten Commandments monument on the Texas state capitol grounds. The justices ruled against Van Orden and upheld the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument. The monument is not a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. In a few other cases involving the establishment clause, justices in favor of the religious exhibition emphasize the ability of the objecting viewers to avert their eyes. This argument was also used in Van Orden v. Perry.
Although the words written on the bridge do not fall under the religion clauses of the First Amendment, they do fall under the very related right of freedom of expression. And, like the case of Van Orden v. Perry, we as a community must ask ourselves if asking bystanders to avert their eyes is sufficient when profanity or negative language is painted onto the bridge.
Ultimately, few of the Supreme Court’s rulings will actually protect Duke students’ comments painted onto the bridge. Duke is a private university, and the bridge is on Duke’s property. But if Duke keeps its word, and we are really going to treat the bridge as a public forum for the Duke community, then we will have to set some common rules to govern how we express ourselves.
Certainly, hate crimes would be prohibited, as they are prosecutable by federal legislation. But the most recent negative words written on the bridge do not technically constitute a hate crime. A criticism of gay pride isn’t necessarily hate speech against homosexuals. Many people in this country oppose excessive national, ethnic or even school pride as being overly divisive. Maybe the writer of the criticism also opposes heterosexual pride? Does that make his or her comments acceptable?
There is a way to bring all of these questions out into the open. The group that painted over these words may have violated the Academic Freedom policies of the University.
According to the Undergraduate Policies in the bulletin of Duke University, “Academic freedom is a right and responsibility of students as well as faculty. Students who believe that their academic freedom has been abridged should submit a written complaint to their academic dean. The dean may enlist the faculty in establishing the merits or extent of the complaint by appointing a disinterested two-person subcommittee of the Faculty Hearing Committee to provide advice. Cases not resolved by the dean may be brought to the attention of the provost. Students may also seek advice of the student ombudsperson in resolving a complaint.”
The student who wrote the words should file a complaint and start the conversation about the bridge and what it means to the Duke community. We should have a conversation about accepting others, but we can’t have that conversation without a common language, or at least a common understanding.
The anarchy governing the bridge today has its benefits. “Happy Birthday” messages would probably be eliminated by an overzealous committee seeking to limit free expression when it comes to the bridge. Instead, we should embrace the anarchy. Bridge painters should have common courtesy and, in the case of negative language, uncommon courtesy. The rights of us as a community all hinge upon the rights of the individual. But rights come with responsibility, and it should be our responsibilities, as engaged students at this University, to share our perspectives and stand by them, rather than let them remain present, but hidden, by the stroke of a paintbrush.
Elad Gross is a Trinity senior. His column runs every Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.