The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2007/10/12/dada_activism_judgement

October 12, 2007 > Opinion > Post modern judgement vs. Dada activism

Post modern judgement vs. Dada activism

By Evan Mintz | Thresher Editorial Staff

News headlines have been all over the place lately, from Blackwater’s killings to Britney Spears’ kids. But for student journalism, four words have dominated the recent news cycle: “Taser This … Fuck Bush!”

On Sept. 21, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, the Colorado State University’s student newspaper, ran an editorial that simply read those four nonsensical words. The editorial came on the heels of the incident at the University of Florida where a student was tasered after barging to the head of the line at a question and answer session with John Kerry, refusing to leave. And while I personally believe anyone who utters the phrase “don’t tase me, bro,” even ironically, deserves a good beating, the event did bring up the question of freedom of speech.

The editorial was not meant as an attack on Bush, but merely to rouse students around the issue of the First Amendment. Indeed, if written two years from now, it probably would read “Fuck Obama.” It was Dada meaninglessness, an experiment in the First Amendment — an experiment that blew up in the editor in chief’s face as he was faced with threats of being forced off the newspaper and even suspension while the self-funded newspaper lost $50,000 in advertising revenue.

This experiment turned out to be more like a Rorschach test, with administrators, students and political activists nation-wide giving their own views of what the editorial meant. They saw a specific meaning in the nonsense that was freedom of speech, and demanded response to the imposed meaning.

It was like deja vu all over again. Over the summer, this same sort of event made it to the Supreme Court in Morse v. Frederick — also known as the Bong Hits 4 Jesus trial. In the case, an Alaskan high school student asserted that his First Amendment rights were violated when the school principal forced him to take down a banner stating “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The student had erected the banner across from the school when classes were let out for the arrival of the 2006 Winter Olympic torch.

Whether or not the event was an official school activity is an arguable point. Nevertheless, judicial precedent states that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. Schools do have the power, however, to prevent students from disrupting the school environment — say, by encouraging drug use in a manner that is not protected political activism.

But as the student argued, the sign was neither political nor encouraging drug use. It was Dadaist nonsense, an experiment in the First Amendment. Someone really should make MSDS guidelines for these experiments, as the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court and ruled that the student was not protected in the matter. The sign was essentially gibberish, and as Justice Souter put it, “just a kid’s provocative statement.” But in an ironic twist, self-proclaimed originalist Chief Justice John Roberts found meaning where the original author said there was none, insisting that the sign was “promoting illegal drug use.”

Both the Bong Hits and Fuck Bush cases were the equivalent of hanging a literary urinal on the wall and having it called obscene. Both sayings were supposed to force people to think about the first amendment in an exploration of our constitutional freedoms. They had no actual meaning, but in this post modern world everything has meaning, even Dada activism. But apparently, anything can be censored, even something that is not supposed to be anything.

So what does this have to do with our own university? Recently, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education lowered Rice’s rating from Yellow to Red, claiming that Rice’s policies violate and restrict freedom of speech. However, the rating seems off. During my time at the Thresher, I have witnessed — and been the cause of — several columns and Backpages that could easily be construed as violating Rice’s policies prohibiting sexual harassment, unwelcome obscenities and disruption of campus activities, all without any official repercussions. (Thank you.)

Undeniably, the Rice administration has had censorship issues in the past, notably the Allison Fine scandal and KTRU shutdown. But while Rice is a private institution, its recent administrators have made it clear that they do not want to have to police student issues — it is not their job to hunt the obscene boogeymen that lurk on campus. Instead, students have to file complaints to start the process, with administrators merely acting as vessels for students’ desires.

So the real question is whether students push for censorship. Students certainly have pushed regulation to prevent the creation of a hostile campus — such as with Jones College’s Hustle and Flo Week or Baker College’s What Would Jesus Brew — and sometimes deservedly so. But the line is hazy between creating a better campus and putting a clamp on student speech, especially considering the prospect of meaningless expression. So while administrators may be the primary target for attacks should a Dadaist expression on campus go misconstrued, remember, students are the ones must look at the urinal on the wall and accuse it as obscene.

Evan Mintz is a Hanszen College senior and the Executive Editor.

End of article

Back to top