In the early hours of Saturday morning, a vandal spray-painted the words “U.S. wanted for murder” in capital letters on the campaign banner of GUSA executive candidates Colton Malkerson (COL ‘13) and Maggie Cleary (COL ‘14), which was in the form of the United States flag. A heated debate on campus revealed the divergent opinions on whether this was a legitimate form of expression, or whether the insult of a national symbol should be condemned regardless of circumstance.
The idea that the defamation of a national symbol is libelous is characteristic of an authoritarian way of thinking, which should not be the case in a pluralistic society. Although we cannot support any act of vandalism, no matter how true its message, in our campus free speech zone, the act itself speaks volumes of how marginalized anti-nationalist opinions are on our campus and how inappropriate it is to use a national patriotic symbol in a GUSA campaign.
Many of those critical of U.S. foreign policy find their voices stifled at Georgetown, especially when they call nationalistic value systems into question. The backlash which many students felt after expressing discomfort with hyper-patriotic displays of enthusiasm in D.C. in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death exemplifies how such unpopular views are discouraged at Georgetown. The marginalization of those with such opinions, who often hail from the international and leftist communities and have different experiences and interpretations of the United States’s role in the world, is to the detriment of every student and serves only to limit productive dialogue on campus.
Further questions remain about the GUSA flag situation, especially regarding the inconsistency inherent in the belief that writing a political statement on the flag is vandalism of a national symbol, while using it to advertise a student government campaign is not considered defacement. Certainly, it is difficult to draw a moral distinction between the two.
Nonetheless, we also must consider how effective spray-painting was at delivering its message. That this was all part of a GUSA campaign is impossible to disregard, and any criticism of U.S. foreign policy would thus be likely subject to misinterpretation. In any case, although we recognize that the choice of campaign strategy may have been in poor taste, the act of spray-painting should not be condoned—it sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of other banners and flyers around campus, particularly those advertising politicized issues.
Instead, we should focus on providing the forums for these types of discussions, and allow for the expression of discourses that diverge from the patriotic or nationalist prerogative. It’s everyone’s responsibility to look past their own patriotic mindsets so we can foment legitimate political conversations on campus that include every perspective. This way, one side is not allowed to monopolize campus dialogue and give it the sole institutionalized platform on our campus.
