Staff Editorial | All College Day mural content problematic

The All College Day mural is meant to be an open space for students to write grievances, words of praise, and general thoughts about the College community. Not just students engage with the All College Day mural; administrators, staff, faculty, and visitors to the College also post, read, and respond. As an annual event of the last six years, many people flock to the mural and painstakingly post their thoughts, or just scribble what comes to mind. Although the mural has the potential to bring about positive discussion, in its current state it does not do so effectively. The Miscellany News recognizes the need for open forums for students to offer their thoughts honestly and frankly. This year’s mural, however, contains personal attacks, with specific administrators and students being named and slandered.

Discussing difficult and controversial views is important; having a huge space to scrawl hurtful language is not. A flyer reminds participants to “respect the opinion and expression of others,” “refrain from name calling and personal attacks,” and to “not deface anything on the mural.” Some blatantly disregard these rules through public slander, while others have (by writing over others’ remarks) taken it upon themselves to decide what the campus should and should not be allowed to read. This type of vigilante censorship operates in the antithesis of All-College Day and the wall specifically, which are meant to be a day and space dedicated to open dialogue. The well-intentioned wall is becoming a place for libel.

The larger problem with the All College Day mural has to do with the effect it has on public space. This is not to say that the potential value of All College Day is nonexistent. In the future, a possible way to quell the disorder on the mural would be to change its structure. Currently, anyone can make an anonymous post. Although some students may choose to include their names as a show of support for a certain topic or sentiment expressed, it is not required. As was seen during the debate that ensued last fall over the anonymous article “Race and Freedom” in MICA publication The Imperialist, anonymity results in a lack of accountability. Designed to foster discussion, members of the community are not empowered right now to seek out people who write on the wall to discuss or engage, which means that what is written at the wall stops right there.

In addition, students who expressed views on the mural and would like to encourage discourse about those views have other outlets. Publications are one way to voice opinions on campus. Whether an organization-based publication or one is specifically produced for All College Day, written articles would help to maximize debate—removing important or contentious or thoughtful one-liners from the wall and putting them down in print, giving the campus community an opportunity to respond. Moreover, this type of expression would help to filter out ad hominem attacks and create a more productive campus discourse. By separating out legitimate, articulate community concerns from mindless attacks, these fora have the potential to go a long way to encouraging true discussion.

In its current form, the mural is a reminder of dissatisfaction at the center of campus. But that does not mean the mural should be tucked away in a corner in an effort to hide the fact that students have concerns and want to air them.

The mural will remain in the College Center until April 16, which is ample time for there to be follow-up discussions about what is written there. Members of the College community, from professors to house teams to students, can and often do engage in organized group discussions, fireside chats, classroom debates, and informal talks. The All College Day mural should be the topic of one of these.

Staff editorials represent at least a two-thirds majority opinion of the Editorial Board.