At the beginning of the year, President Barry Mills addressed the community in an e-mail, reminding us of the existence of the Bias Incident Group on campus. The group's purpose is to address "...defacements, graffiti, or other hateful expressions against campus groups." Last week, an unknown group entered the chapel and posted several pictures protesting the Roman Catholic Church's stance on gay marriage. One picture depicted the Virgin Mary with the word "slut" written on the back. At the time of writing, the Bias Incident Group has yet to issue a statement condemning the actions of these maladjusted individuals.
Throughout my years at Bowdoin, the Bias Incident Group has been called on several occasions to address particularly atrocious incidents. In 2005, the group issued a statement condemning an act of homophobic vandalism. The group convened again in 2007 to issue a statement addressing homophobic phrases directed towards an openly gay student on campus.
If the past two decisions are any indication of how the Bias Incident Group may act, it wouldn't be a surprise if the group convenes again to address the vandalism in the chapel. In all three cases, some form of defacement and hateful expression was directed towards a specific group on campus.
However, with the recent spate of free speech issues on campus, I am forced to wonder whether it is wise to continue administrative regulation of the content of speech through College policies and the Bias Incident Group. Many of the latest free speech conflicts on campus have involved the regulation of content. This sort of regulation would not be allowed at an institution bound by the First Amendment (i.e., a public university).
Take for example, the recent controversy over the use of Greek letters to advertise a Meddiebempsters event. Although the matter was eventually deemed to be a miscommunication of College policy, it is doubtful that the miscommunication would have occurred had the College avoided content regulation altogether.
The vandalism in the chapel provides an opportunity for the College to move in a direction that is more protective of free speech. But rather than assembling the Bias Incident Group, the College, as a pluralistic institution dedicated to free expression, ought to maintain a neutral position. Students on the other hand, should pick up the slack by taking a more proactive approach in condemning the acts as despicable.
By placing a greater burden on students to condemn inappropriate speech, the College avoids the difficulties of having to determine what speech should and shouldn't be uttered on campus. Furthermore, students will also be more prepared to deal with issues outside of the Bowdoin bubble. After all, the Bias Incident Group cannot protect students against hateful speech for the rest of their lives.
Jeff Jeng '09 is chair of the Bowdoin College Republicans.