Guerilla versus civil discourse

By: Courier Staff
Collective Body

Between protest and vandalism lies a thin line. How do we know when that line has been crossed? Who is to decide whether it is a senseless act of vandalism or a display of protest with a heavy political message?

Recently, Monmouth College has been blanketed with seemingly outraged messages of either protests or vandalism, depending on who is defining these actions. Many students should have seen the beginning of this movement, which began Tuesday, Sept. 26. The first of these messages appeared in the form of a blue spray-painted stencil which was placed at the bottom of the stairs outside the Underground below Grier residence hall. These stencils boldly read: “RECLAIM YOUR WORLD/ DEFEAT PROPAGANDA.” For those who are not aware of these events, a detailed list can be found on page 5 of this issue of “The Courier.”

As could be expected, the appearance of this mysterious message early Tuesday morning was met with nearly instantaneous response by the Monmouth College maintenance staff. In fact, the response time in relation to the appearance of this, and subsequent messages, was so fast that it was almost impossible to get a photograph of the messages.

Various Monmouth College faculty members were interviewed in an attempt to find out their opinion on the matter. Jane Jakoubek, vice president for academic affairs and dean of the faculty, seemed to take a neutral stance on the events, stating, “What we have here are two separate issues: vandalism and the right of free speech. Vandalism is vandalism, while the right of free speech means you should be able to express your opinion. It doesn’t matter what the point of view is, be it political or religious, [the students] need to be able to express them through the right of discussion.”

These messages found on campus have been compared to “shouting into the darkness and running away.” They do not allow for a response from anyone, lest he grab a can of spray-paint and deface another building. “You don’t change someone’s mind by shouting. It is done by bringing arguments that are persuasive and well informed. We need to not shout slogans, but bring conversation to the table so that we can operate in an open forum. Shouting forces us to acknowledge the problems, but may cause backlash,” said Jakoubek.

And backlash is what the responsible parties may be receiving. Mohsin Masood, associate dean of students and director of residence life spoke out on the recent bouts of vandalism, stating “I think that whoever disagrees with policy, be it college or government, they should come out and have a civil debate. The college has nothing against any of the student’s individual opinions. The under-handed method used by the individuals involved was not the way to go about informing us of their opinion.”

Masood pointed out that the things which the students are protesting are not under the control of the college, yet college property is being defaced in a blatant violation. The message appears to be vague, said Masood, stating, “they are throwing something out there and we don’t even know exactly what they mean or how we are responsible. They should find an appropriate way to submit their problems and allow people to respond to them.”

The difficulty in this situation is that no one has publicly come forward to lay claim to these acts. Masood and other faculty members are currently attempting to get to the bottom of the vandalism. Regardless of the implicit message attached to the act, it is still defacing college property as far as the college is concerned.

Recently, a bit of light has been shed on the identities of the individuals involved. A “manifesto” of sorts was discovered early this past Thursday slid under the door of the Student Publications room. This manifesto was authored by a group of individuals known only as “The Rites of Spring.” According to this document, “The Rites of Spring is an alliance of freethinkers intent upon sparking an insurrection in the minds of our generation.”

The manifesto proceeds to defend their actions, stating, “Many of you who are aware of our activities on campus and off campus may ask, ‘why spray paint or print abrasive flyers? Why not civil discussion?’ First, our asymmetric tactics are only a part of our activities. Our membership, which is in the double digits and growing, fully supports conventional discourse. We all regularly engage in discussion in the normal arenas; however, this is not enough. Instead, peaceful force is required to bring neglected issues important to the human condition to public attention.”

These are the words of the individuals responsible for placing messages of protest all over campus these past few days. Both organizations, The Rites of Spring and Monmouth College Student Affairs, have openly discussed the benefits of civil discourse and their willingness to engage in such a forum.

It is clear that there is a fairly large group of students on this campus that are interested in discussing a variety of political issues. Some have decided that they need to shout to be heard. Now the question lies as to who will make the first move to resolve this conflict in a civil manner.