Over the next few days, students on Bruin Walk will encounter
graphic images of aborted fetuses during their walk to class,
courtesy of an organization called Justice for All: Students for
Bio-Ethical Equality. The group hopes to convince students that
abortion is wrong.
But the Justice for All display, for the most part, has the
effect of causing shock and disgust ““ not rational debate
““ so the value of its methodology is minimal. The display
does draw a few students into discussion with standby members, but
more widespread are informal discussions that tend to center on the
offensiveness of the gigantic pictures at the entrance to
campus.
Perhaps the Justice for All organizers fail to realize this is a
university ““ a place where ideas are debated, not shoved down
people’s throats. Justice for All is entitled to use whatever
means of speech they want to convey their message ““ they even
have a token “free speech” board set up encouraging
dissent ““ but if they truly believe in intelligent discussion
about a social issue as complex as abortion, they should treat it
as such.
Abortion is a highly contentious, multi-faceted issue. It
involves political, scientific, moral, health, gender equity,
safety, personal and religious questions. Justice for All ignores
this fact. Instead, it presents the view that morality is absolute,
not relative, and that their view is correct.
Since they regard the issue as a simple black-or-white question,
it is understandable why they allow themselves to unashamedly
resort to one-sided shock value methods to get their message
across.
Shock disarms people and weakens their ability to formulate
coherent arguments. Those that believe in abortion rights encounter
uphill battles in the face of trained staff members working under
the shadow of monstrous posters. The Justice for All group claims
it aims to inspire productive debate, but by distracting its
opponents with the display, it manipulates the environment of the
debate to its own advantage. Many students lash out at the display
itself, as evidenced by the angry comments left on the
display’s “Free Speech Board.” The vitriolic
messages help prove the display alienates the students that it
supposedly hopes to inspire.
The presence of graphic images on Bruin Walk has substantial
environmental implications for the UCLA campus, too. Jaded college
students seeking debate are not the only ones affected by the
graphic images. Young school children on tours, staff members,
potential UCLA students and members of the wider community are all
involuntarily forced to view the horrible images. Many of them are
not prepared to encounter such disturbing images in an environment
they considered “safe.”
Considering these implications, Justice for All should seek
other methods for encouraging discussion about abortion. Teach-ins
and formal debate forums are all proven methods for bringing
students together for discussion. These methods may require more
work than a single display but ultimately could have a deeper, more
long lasting impact.
Free speech is a fundamental right, and the Justice for All
group has a right to make its views heard ““ and seen.
However, when the group comes to a college campus, it should
carefully consider the overall impact and value its display has. At
a campus as political as UCLA, a large sign reading “Abortion
is wrong,” would have sufficed to entice meaningful debate
““ without the fetuses. This is not because students want to
remain sheltered about abortion, it’s because they want to
remain decent.