I get frustrated when I lack the words to articulate what I am feeling. This past week was a week of feeling in abundance. I didn’t want to go to bed on Tuesday because I knew that I would wake up to bad news. Back home bad news is typically delivered by my father, first thing in the morning, when he solemnly knocks on my bedroom door and opens it to say something along the lines of “Maggie died,” “Beto lost,” “Molly died,” or “Trump won.” This year I didn’t have my mom or dad and it was strange to go through my first presidential election alone. Instead of a knock at my bedroom door, I found out the way most of us did — through a notification from a random news app with a headline that said something along the lines of “Trump wins 2024 Presidential election.” Phooey.
As a disillusioned Democrat, the results were not surprising. Also unsurprising were the plethora of inspirational infographics which took over my Instagram feed. Infographics, I’m sorry to say, don’t really do it for me. Anyone can make them and anyone can repost them. It’s strange to see them sandwiched between Instagram stories of “Seinpeaks” reels and “slide up for a tbh,” making them often feel ingenuine and menial in the larger picture of the issues that infographics attempt to address. I avoid sharing them out of personal preference — but on days like Wednesday, I can make an exception. As a Texan, I feel like the expectation of conservatism is thrust upon me, especially from peers hailing from the East Coast who lack nuance in their understanding of the American South. This is why when I saw the painted fence posted online last Wednesday, I thought “Why not?” and reposted it on my story.
Last Wednesday’s fence was black with white lettering that read “STAY STRONG” and “THIS TOO SHALL PASS.” Although there are those who believe that Wednesday’s fence came across as an iteration of a “thoughts and prayers” statement and functions less to inspire and more to minimize or dismiss people’s feelings about the election, The Fence isn’t usually a source of nuanced comfort for me and it was a sweet effort that created a space on campus to acknowledge that many in the Carnegie Mellon community were really struggling.
Also it had the “FUCK TRUMP” painting on the side, which made me giggle because, yeah, f*** that guy.
This is the main thing that I want to address in this piece. It only took me about 400 words to get to it. Guess how long it will take me to get to my argument? Not too many, actually. I believe that students should be allowed to paint the word “FUCK” on The Fence without it being painted over by the Student Senate.
Leaving my class last Wednesday afternoon, I was so confused when I saw a person painting a white block over the latter portion of the word, leaving the “F.” At that point the side of The Fence read “F [white block] TRUMP.” Later, Student Senate posted, on their Instagram, a statement on The Fence that read “While political expression on The Fence is welcome, obscene language violates both the university’s Disorderly Conduct Policy and Student Governments Graffiti and Poster Policy … Therefore, at about 12:30 p.m … , we painted over the obscenity to uphold compliance with university policies, while preserving the intent of the original message.”
Huh? “Preserving the original message”? By the end of the day The Fence read “F [white block] TRUMP.” If they were going to censor something on The Fence why not commit and paint over the entire phrase? “F [white block] TRUMP” says nothing. But you know what says a lot? “F*** TRUMP.” We are allowed to paint “WE LOVE DICK” on The Fence (in reference to professor Dick Block) for a student body largely unaware who professor Dick Block is — let us say “FUCK” on The Fence.
The thing about political expression on Carnegie Mellon’s campus is that it is largely not allowed. Protests have been restricted to gatherings of fewer than 25 people and require a staff member’s sponsorship. The thing about acts of protest or disorderly conduct is that they tend to respond in a way that combats and works outside of the constraints of policy.
Another thing that really grinds my gears about the painting over the word “FUCK” is that I am completely unsuprised by the Student Senate’s reaction. On Sept. 26, Student Senate sent out an email that struck me as strange, they announced an addition to The Fence with signs that dictate the “tenets of The Fence.” Sure, that’s fine. But the wording on one of the signs was peculiar to me. It said “CMU students have the privilege to paint The Fence” and “Respect for The Fence and that ground that surrounds it is a requirement to ensure the tradition of The Fence endures.” I believe that the word “FUCK” in no way hinders the tradition of The Fence. If anything, it exemplifies The Fence’s function as a tool for students to express themselves, expletives or not. If The Fence is thought of as a place where students express themselves, why be surprised when students express themselves? If there is a sign next to The Fence that reminds students that The Fence is nothing more than a “privilege,” forgive me if I am incorrect, but doesn’t this imply that an abuse of this “privilege” will result in the removal of the “privilege” of student expression?
Students paint The Fence at their own risk. When the Carnegie Mellon Republicans painted Thursday’s Fence, “THE SILENT MAJORITY SPOKE”, it was no surprise that students outside of the “silent majority” [insert nerd emoji here] responded to the message painted on The Fence with their own messages, garnering a spectacular turnout at Thursday night’s Fence painting. When students use The Fence as a forum of expression, the groundwork for political discussion prevails and can create a space for community building and growth. I understand that Student Senate has their reasoning behind the policies in place surrounding The Fence, but the censorship of student expression does nothing but silence conversations that students want to have. Carnegie Mellon has repeatedly expressed a fear of political discourse and, I for one, am happy to see students express themselves whether working within or outside of policy imposed on a structure meant to facilitate free speech and expression.