College campuses are a breeding ground for controversy, especially when graffiti is involved.
While graffiti should be allowed in designated areas on UNC-system campuses, threatening language should not be tolerated.
Indivdiual campuses, both private and public, should reform their codes of conduct to include consequences when students paint certain hateful words or imagery on campus property that are deemed threatening.
Graffiti targeting former Duke College Republicans Chairman Justin Robinette was recently discovered on the East Campus Bridge at Duke University.
Robinette asserted that his impeachment from the Duke College Republicans in April was a result of his homosexuality.
The graffiti read, “Lying F-g Robinette, DCR = Righteous, get AIDS in hell.” Duke police are still investigating, but the administration made little comment on the matter.
This episode echoes the 2008 incident at N.C. State. Four students admitted to painting racist graffiti in the Free Expression Tunnel on election night.
The First Amendment is tricky. By protecting freedom of speech, it leaves room for hate speech that is often unconstitutional to regulate.
But there are options for regulating campus property, and hateful language can spread fear and anger.
