Tim Burke's blog

collegialmom
Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:55:05 +0000

"First, the content of the chalkings themselves has become more graphic and confrontational over the years. 1986 was marked by rainbow smiley faces and “I like dykes”, but 1995 saw “Have you kissed a **** today?” and “Queers eat out here.” 2006 greeted us with diagrams of vaginas, “Your tour guide is queer,” and the statement “Anal sex is for everyone.”

The increasingly confrontational chalkings have appeared as overt homophobia at Swarthmore has diminished. While chalkings started as spontaneous and deeply subversive acts (consider the 1986 “graffiti”), frequently in direct response to anti-gay vandalism or violence on campus, over the past five years, the chalkings appear have become something of a yearly ritual. The conversations surrounding them have also become more ritualized over the years." (Above is quoted rom Lauren Stokes’ comprehensive summary about the chalkings).

It is a good point that the chalkings have become more graphic as acceptance of the issues has become more widespread. Any possibility that the chalkers are just trying for more reactions and so have to “up the anty?”

Also, if they have free speech, unlimited, who’s to say that their detractors don’t have as much right to respond with their opinions? And how about people who hose down the offensive chalkings, which happened this year? Do they have a right to NOT want to be offended? I must say, I would probably be in the hosing camp, as I just wouldn’t want to see porno when I walk to breakfast, and would be willing to take the consequences. Although I seem to recall that porno is protected under free speech, is open porno protected, esp when minors may be touring on campus, or when an adult just DOESN’T want to see it, whether thry are parents or employees? Any lawyers know the answer to this question?