In sixth grade, I read Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” for the first time. While it was an odd choice for a middle school English class, I rolled with it. Bradbury writes about a dystopian American future in which all books are banned and, by extension, freedom of speech has become a lost concept. Even with all the media out there about censorship, nothing reminds me more of our present moment than Bradbury’s words.
“With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual,' of course, became the swear word it deserved to be,” Bradbury writes. Open expression, I fear, has become Emory University’s swear word. We have turned the phrase into its direct antithesis: whispered thoughts and internalized feelings. Many students, faculty and administrators shy away and blanch at mentions of the University's heavily contested Respect for Open Expression Policy. The Emory community must change how we conceptualize open expression to move forward without suffocating fear and shame on campus regarding individuals' views.
It pains me, both as a student and as a journalist, to see how our community balks at discussing the importance of our rights to expression. The most prevalent issue regarding open expression on campus is that all of us — students, faculty and administrators alike — have failed to collectively foster a community where people feel safe having hard conversations. Inside their politicized chambers, the Student Government Association (SGA) and University Senate are certainly talking about student rights, open expression policies and these policies' impacts on the Emory community at large. Yet, the average student is left out of these conversations and must be integrated. Instead of open expression being equated to hushed discussions and closed meetings, it should mean inclusive community discourse and productive collaboration.
Our community has painted a picture of open expression as protest, hurt, shame and opposing individuals’ hating each other. This is not without evidence: The memories of April 25, and the days following, haunt me. Seeing Emory community members, as well as those from greater Atlanta, subject to abuses, such as irritant gas and non-lethal ammunition, in response to the expression of their thoughts and feelings, is a wound that may never fully heal.
Our campus’ aversion to public discussions of open expression comes from the current conflict and humanitarian crisis in the Middle East. About 18% of Emory’s undergraduate population reports being Jewish, making it the 16th most populous Jewish student body at a private university in the United States. Jewish life flourishes at Emory, with communities being forged at Emory Hillel, Chabad and in Greek life. Many of these students are supportive of Israel’s actions in the conflict in the Gaza Strip. Emory’s comparatively large Jewish population intensifies feelings surrounding the conversation about Israel and Palestine. It is Jewish students’ right to hold beliefs based on their culture and religion. However, it is also the right of other students to agree or disagree, and this has resulted in a campus alight with disagreement over Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether you support Israel, Palestine or land somewhere in between, it is essential to remember that holding one’s belief should not inhibit the ability to engage in conversation with others due to shame and fear.
As an Oxford College continuee, I take every opportunity to recognize my alma mater. Currently, the Oxford Student Government Association (OxSGA) is doing more than I see University President Gregory Fenves, SGA or the University Senate doing to truly support open expression discourse. Even now, as a student on the Atlanta campus, I see OxSGA’s Instagram posts advertising town halls and can feel the Oxford students’ passion for engagement in discourse through my screen. I urge other important actors on campus — I’m looking at you, SGA — to engage in the same kind of community uplifting that OxSGA is doing. Even if no solution comes from discourse and student involvement, OxSGA’s actions show that embracing open expression can be collaborative and, ironically, open.
While I may not possess personal connections to the Israel-Palestine conflict, debates over open expression have always felt personal to me, regardless. Open expression extends past Israel, Palestine and U.S. foreign policy. Our community is setting precedents and making rules about open expression that are not content-neutral and even target certain student groups’ demonstrations, and I would hate for that to make a lasting impact on our community. For example, the new addendum to the open expression policy bans encampments on campus — and only one group of students on campus was exercising this right in April.
This inspires questions about how we can embrace open expression in a productive and inclusive way. As a journalist, I would encourage everyone reading to submit to The Emory Wheel’s opinion section portal. However, not everyone is a writer. Realistically, I cannot give you an answer. Open expression is such a lovely phrase because it encapsulates mediums beyond only speech — it captures art, storytelling, protest, writing, religion, film, teaching, jokes, vigils and much more than I could ever list. The most important part of reimagining open expression is that we start sharing our thoughts and opinions with our community, in whatever way suits individuals’ fancy.
The Emory community needs a significant shift in the responsibility of open expression policy-making. While the University, explicitly the vice president and dean for campus life, remains as the final arbiter of the Respect for Open Expression Policy, I do not believe we can ever move past this paralysis of discussion unless we can implement a solution.
Inspired by a professor, I propose a third party to administer open expression policies. This body could provide much-needed neutrality. Take Emory Ombuds as an excellent example of how this structure could work. University interests, by nature, will always take precedence over student and community interests — major donors and stakeholders on the Emory Board of Trustees remain as an authority over these important decisions about open expression. Emory must center students, faculty, staff and other community members to prevent the final word on open expression to land in the laps of the Emory administration exclusively, as it did with the new addendum.
Embracing open expression would be the antithesis of what this campus currently seems to fear — it would be beautiful, uncomfortable and open. We should not be restricting free expression simply because someone disagrees with something being said. If you are uncomfortable, albeit not in danger, then we are probably doing this free expression thing correctly. If protests are interrupting class, that means they are working, and maybe someone should start listening to what these community members are chanting.
Ellie Fivas (26C) is from Cleveland, Tenn.
