Provocative poster comes under scrutiny

Author: Brian Fung

Politically active members of the College community respectfully faced off with one another on Oct. 1 in an open discussion sponsored by Dialogues for Peace. The discussions were prompted by a poster, obtained several weeks ago by the College Republicans and subsequently displayed across campus, which commemorated the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States.
The posters, bearing photographs that depicted acts of violence perpetrated against the U.S. by Islamic fundamentalists and the words "Never Forget," shocked some students who interpreted the sign as inflammatory and overly simplistic with respect to the threat of militant Islam.
"If the aim of this poster was to commemorate the victims of international terror," said Andrey Tolstoy '10, "we should have had more countries represented there, especially because Middlebury is such an international school."
Anti-war group Hope For Peace responded to the posters shortly thereafter with its own version of the "Never Forget" sign, which urged students to be inquisitive about the seemingly implicit political message behind the Republican poster.

With impassioned statements during the Monday dialogue, students alternately criticized the first poster for being racially provocative and defended it for spurring fresh critical thought about American foreign policy.

"This is not just about remembering," said Hope For Peace representative Will Bellaimey '10.5. "This poster has a purpose. This is a violent image that will get people angry and afraid. It's being used for a political purpose, and to say otherwise is just dishonest."

Those who initially introduced the poster maintained that their intentions were anything but incendiary.

"We put this up hoping to commemorate the deaths of 9/11 and to raise awareness," said Heather Pangle '10, co-president of the College Republicans, "and to make people think about what the appropriate response to these [attacks] should be."

At the core of the discussion was a dispute over what the images on the poster were intended to represent. Critics of the College Republicans quickly asserted that the sign invited students to associate the tragedy of 9/11 with similar acts of political violence and a call to defend the United States against an excessively militant Islamic faith. While Pangle acknowledged that the poster's images were unquestionably linked by the theme of religious extremism, they did not necessarily represent an indictment of all Muslims.

"It's a vast oversimplification to say that the poster is anti-Muslim simply because the attacks portrayed on it were perpetrated by Muslims," said Pangle. "It's important to make the distinction between Islamic extremists and peaceful Muslims."

But Tolstoy, whose op-ed about the issue was published in The Middlebury Campus on Sept. 26, claimed that the poster made no such distinction and merely portrayed the fight against global terrorism as a struggle between the U.S. and an ambiguously defined enemy. Tolstoy suggested that the poster should have been censored by College administration officials.

"Free speech has its limits," he said, citing Nazism and his own experiences with it in Europe, where public expressions of support for the party are illegal.

Others stopped short of calling for censorship, but said that the message of remembrance and mourning could have been accomplished in more sensitive ways.

"Emotions used in the wrong way can be dangerous," said Nicholas Palmeri '09. "My first reaction to the poster was, 'somebody's going to get it from somebody.'" Palmeri proposed that a picture of the World Trade Center would have been a more effective way to commemorate those who died in the 9/11 attacks rather than link together historical attacks by Islamic extremists.

Some participants in the conversation called attention to the poster's slogan, "Never Forget," claiming that it was misleading because it failed to describe what it was that should be remembered about 9/11, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 and other acts of anti-U.S. terrorism.

"You can go to the Web site of the Young America's Foundation," said Austen Levihn-Coon '08, referring to the Herndon, Va.-based organization that sponsored the posters, "and on their Web site, it says the poster was put up to remember all Americans that were killed by 'Islamists.'"

In spite of the rhetoric cited by Levihn-Coon, Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry argued that the poster simply called on students to remember the continuing threat of violent political Islam, and that such a message could hardly be conceived as prejudiced.

"Is it racist to say, 'never forget acts of Islamic extremism?'" asked Dry. "If you insist on such a broad definition of racism, you will then silence any position from which some people would disagree."

Though the discussion began as an exchange about the Republican poster, Dry's comment opened the door to a frank and bilateral conversation about American political culture.

"I see this poster as one small part of a general problem in this country," said Leah Bevis '09, "which is using emotions and fear to confuse people to the point that they're ready to just do what they're told. When you look at the number of people who believe that Iraq bombed us on 9/11, that's a really sad thing. This poster is a microcosm of that very broad policy and it doesn't facilitate specific discussion."

According to College Republicans co-president Siobhan O'Malley '10, the perceived liberal orientation of the College's student body makes it difficult for many conservatives to participate in political discussions in the first place.

"The point is that it's tough to be a conservative on such a liberal campus," said O'Malley. "I don't know if I'd feel safe [objecting to a liberal poster]."

According to Pangle, liberal students at the College are embarrassingly uninformed about conservatives.

"A lot of people think conservatives must be anti-gay, anti-global warming, anti-immigrant, possibly racist - and probably Christian," said Pangle, who sought to dispel what she called "wonderful stereotypes."

Despite the perceived gulf in understanding between political groups on campus, some who attended the event believed that the forum was helpful in bridging the gap and informing attendees about various viewpoints.

"This has been the most constructive and the fullest reaction [to campus political controversy] I've seen," said Dry.