Removing the anti-LGBTQ table was censorship
After the recent events involving the homophobic booth on campus, I was surprised, or rather, disturbed by how many people I spoke to who condoned the campus removing them. Do I support the students’ beliefs? No. Do I understand the anger and frustration expressed by the students wishing to foster a more pro-LGBTQ mindset on campus? Yes. But I cannot, and never will, condone such actions as were committed by the campus by forcibly removing the booth.
Many of us seem to believe—albeit unconsciously—that simply erasing the views that we hold to be controversial and dangerous will lead to those views magically disappearing, but it simply doesn’t. The Communist Manifesto being banned in Tsarist Russia did not stop the rise of Leninism. The censorship of pro-libertarian books in the British colonies did not stop the American Revolution. And Middle Eastern governments attempting to stop the translation of Paradise Lost did not stop it from redefining what many of their youth felt about their religion and their own individuality.
And here we come to our greatest failure: how far we have strayed from our roots as Protestants. During the 16th century, the Qur’an was finally translated into Latin by Swiss publisher Johannes Oporinus. As a result, he was jailed for this slight. The concept of the Qur’an becoming widely available in Europe, especially given the campaign of conquest the Ottomans were currently conducting at the time, was seen as an abomination to Christian doctrine and morality. However, one man disagreed, and with his help the Latin translation of the Qur’an was printed in 1543. That man was none other than Martin Luther.
Today we may see this as him simply wanting to embrace a sense of diversity and understanding of other cultures, but this was not the case. Luther certainly shared the disdain against Islam that his fellow Europeans had. Rather, he wanted the Qur’an published because, after he had read the translation, he was so disgusted with the ideology enclosed within that he wanted it scrutinized and dissected by the Christian population, not simply locked behind the iron gate of censorship. Only by reading and understanding the, in his words, “utterly despicable and blasphemous” text could they expose and dispel it. Luther even wrote an introduction for the early printings, in which he explained that studying non-Christian texts was one of the best ways to confirm one’s own faith. If Luther was so adamant that Christians should understand other points of view and address them through ways other than censorship, why are we not?
This situation is not an easy one but we cannot simply banish those beliefs we think, or more often, know, to be incorrect and expect them to go away. Those beliefs will still exist, and they will become increasingly stronger unless we discuss and dispel them. I am reminded of Daryl Davis, a Black blues musician who has successfully brought about over 200 former Klansmen to renounce their once racist beliefs. He did this not through aggression, but by attending KKK rallies in order to engage with and talk with those same people who hated him simply for being born a different race. During a TED talk in 2017, he said that “When you seek to destroy somebody, all you do is empower them, because they feel like, ‘You see? They don’t want us to have our rights to feel the way we want to feel.’ And they get more and more emboldened and more and more empowered.” If we are to address and remedy homophobic beliefs, we must start by actually remedying such beliefs, else we not be able to call ourselves “Christ’s agents of renewal”. If we continue this path of censorship, it will only lead to those censored to feel persecuted, that feeling will lead to hatred, and hatred will lead to the very actions we claim to be against.
A Friend • Mar 26, 2021 at 9:38 am
While Will De Man and Rachel Hubka have a point, in all fairness to the author of this piece, so does he. To say this is “crying wolf when no wolf exists” is to ignore that this article presents a very considerate understanding of our current social climate. Even though it may be missing key details about the event in question, the article covers a more broadly applicable topic that can still be appreciated outside the context of the table event. In fact, even in situations related to the table event, conversations taking place around campus where people are increasingly short on patience, this is a good encouragement to enter into uncomfortable conversations and test your beliefs through discourse. That is reason enough to read and understand this article. If you were at the table on the day of, I would encourage you to submit an article of your own. Yours is a firsthand experience and while it likely won’t come with the same depth of historical consideration and understanding of human inadequacy as this article, it would be inherently valuable as information around what exactly happened.
Rachel Hubka • Mar 24, 2021 at 10:51 pm
As someone who was present during the entire event and also in conversation with the people who helped shut down the table, I want to point out that the table got shut down not because of the message, but because of the crowd that had gathered around, things were no longer COVID safe. There was no censorship involved. Perhaps do some research and learn what actually happened before claiming something was censorship.
Will De Man • Mar 21, 2021 at 9:04 pm
The booth was taken down because it didn’t follow Calvin’s rules for that type of event. Calvin has hosted a wide variety of conferences, lectures, and conversations on this topic from all across the belief spectrum. There have been pro LGBTQ groups on campus and anti LGBTQ groups on campus (such as the one mentioned by another recent op-ed in the Chimes). Claiming that any regulation of speech is censorship is crying wolf when no wolf exists. The conversation is open. The university welcomes the conversation– you just can’t break the university’s rules on how to facilitate that conversation. Claiming the removal of the booth as censorship is like claiming the rule against solicitation in the dorms is anticapitalist. There is a proper time and space for everything and Calvin as all authority to decide how these conversations should happen on campus.