At any rate, the demeanor of our slanderous Chancellor was far more controlled than that of a female faculty member who, upon seeing the signs, literally went incoherent and shrieked endless profanity that eventually embarrassed even the pro-aborts. In fairness, however, most UT administrators were quite professional (as were the excellent campus police) though as usual, most faculty kept their distance.
EVEN-HANDED PRESS COVERAGE
Unlike their older colleagues in the working press, student journalists have generally tried to be even-handed in their coverage of GAP, and UT’s school paper was also commendably fair. As the following lead editorial demonstrates (November 17), the editorial board grasped the concept of free speech even though they don't understand the dynamics of social activism.
If the Center For Bio-Ethical Reform is searching for shock value with the large and vivid posters on the Humanities Plaza this week, they are succeeding.
* * *
Unfortunately for them, however, many of the people who visited the exhibit were turned off upon seeing the posters.
Essentially, they are harming their own argument with the posters. And that’s a shame because the people running the exhibit are very knowledgeable and articulate about the subject matter. They are thorough and interesting and, at least during times Beacon staffers were on hand, did not incite any “blow-up” arguments.
* * *
No matter how graphic the posters are or how intimidating it might be to step up and argue, this is an important issue that needs to be tackled now. With the pro-life Center For Bio-Ethical Reform and the hundreds of pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike surrounding them, today is as good a chance to begin the discussion as ever.
It doesn’t have to be violent. We don’t even need to raise our voices. But we should definitely talk – about the posters, about genocide, about religion, about abortion and about life.
This is a thoughtful analysis but it incorrectly assumes that pro-lifers must be popular to be effective. When eight UT students thought they were pregnant, GAP signs persuaded them to go to the crisis pregnancy center instead of Planned Parenthood, despite their having been “turned off” by those very signs. These women could no longer maintain the fiction that their babies really weren’t babies or that abortion really wasn’t a savage act of violence. CBR cares much more about what women think of abortion than what they think of CBR.
We had literally hundreds of stimulating, insightful discussions with thoughtful students of all persuasions during our week at UT. Most of those exchanges were carefully audited by thousands of bystanders. Our attempt to encourage dialogue succeeded beyond our most optimistic expectations. But we obviously had our detractors. And the UT/GAP controversy raged on.
Campus news columnist Darrell Carson (dcarson@utk.edu) remarked on-line, that pro-aborts should not “…insult the entire student body by suggesting that the administration needs to baby sit us so that we aren’t exposed to ideas we may not like.”
On the front page of The Daily Beacon, November 17 there appeared an article headlined “Students react to graphic display:”
Graphic images of an alleged decapitated head alongside the images of the Holocaust and black lynchings are enough evidence to prove abortion is genocide, according to the Center For Bio-Ethical Reform.
* * *
CBR has been counteracted by another display sponsored by a coalition of students, faculty, clergy and community members who are against violence taken against abortion clinics and graphic images displayed by CBR.
* * *
SGA Senator for Central Programming Council, Ayappa Biddanda said, “I am revolted (by the display) but I don’t think it helps their cause at all. In fact it further polarizes the debate.”
However, some students including Crystal Jones, a junior in finance, said the display was a good idea for awareness.
“I definitely see the correlation between the three, (black lynchings, the Holocaust and abortions) but I definitely can’t make a choice for anyone other than myself,” Jones said.
* * *
…[I]f they [CBR] encounter violence …they will extend their stay, Cunningham said.
Ms. Jones saw the truth and embraced part of it (don't kill babies) but remained under the powerful spell of "choice" (don't outlaw baby killing). Oh well, it's a start.
What Ayappa Biddanda failed to realize is that “polarizing the debate” is one of our most important goals, because debate is vital to the success of social reform. Abortion has become “yesterday’s news” and few people have a compelling inclination to discuss it critically. Many mistakenly imagine themselves to be “in the middle” on this issue and must be pushed one way or the other (polarization) if the law is ever to be changed (being personally opposed to baby killing but not wanting to outlaw the killing of a baby is not the “middle” any more than being personally opposed to rape is the “middle” if you think sexual assault should be legal).
In the November 18th issue of The Knoxville News Sentinel, the caption on a photo headlined “Activists square off over antiabortion display” read in part, “…‘This is a moral ambush,’ said [a pro-abort student named] McKelvey, who objected to the graphic pictures of abortions.”
In his November 19 Daily Beacon column, Darrell Carson weighed in again:
About that display from the Center For Bio-Ethical Reform group early this week, I’ve got to say that it wasn’t subtle, but it was really effective in getting the group’s point across. Whether you support or oppose abortion or lie somewhere in the middle, you’ve got to admit that those were some very disturbing photographs. Of course, that was the point.
Mr. Carson is a man with a social conscience.
|
