Chalkings Reveal Deeper Problems by Amy Albert Spring 1993. Grafitti presenting the words "Kill Niggers" are found on Magill Walk. Fall 1994. The words "cunt" and "pickle stuffer" are written next to the names of the Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Alliance (later to be SQU) leaders on the Parrish Bulletin Board of the organization. Spring 1997. Derogatory slurs against gay students are found on the walls of the fifth floor of Parrish. Fall 1997. "Fuck fag" and the name of a student are sprayed in shaving cream on the mirror in a bathroom in that student's dorm.   The incidents listed above represent just a sampling of the hate speech found on this campus directed either at individuals or groups of Swarthmore students. While both these and the anti-straight and anti-white chalkings which covered the campus on the morning of April 3 are examples of graffitti, this is where the similarity between the two end. This is, obviously, my own perspective with regard to the realities of those chalkings. I hope it will promote a continued discussion on them, but more importantly, on the dynamics from which they emerged. It is, in part, a response to the discussions I heard while walking around campus on the days following the incident and, in part, my own reaction to the chalkings themselves.   Thinking about the Chalkings While the most recent chalkings and the examples listed above target groups based on identity, there is an important difference in the ways in which this grafitti affects its targets. The implications of anti-black and anti-queer chalkings (as well as anti-Asian and anti-Latino chalkings should they occur) are far-reaching. They are physical manifestations of the power of prejudice in our society. As a queer student, when I look at chalkings which say "kill fags dead" like the ones which graced the front of Mertz in the fall semester of this year, I am not just hurt. I worry about my safety. Queer people in Philadelphia, in Boston and in my hometown of Winchester, Massachussetts face the threat of homophobic violence on a daily basis. Several of my friends and acquaintances have been beaten up for being queer. While generally, I would like to assume that Swarthmore is a haven from such violence, I recognize that we cannot vacuum seal Swarthmore as an airtight, bias-free environment. Smart people can be bigoted. Liberal people can be homophobic. When I see a chalking that says "kill fags," the possibility of physical violence is made more of a reality for me. Even without the potential for violence, anti-queer chalkings interrupt my educational process. After a chalking incident, I am distracted and upset by the words I see on the ground, not because they are mean, but because they connect with broader societal views which create the homophobia I face in the classroom, at parties and in the job market. For my friends of color, racist chalkings represent a similar distraction. They are not distracting simply because they are mean. They are disturbing because they are a physical manifestation of a bigotry they must face on a daily basis in a more subtle form. They are a reminder of the commonplace and subtle forms of discrimination which we have all put in the back of our minds in order to focus on that which we can control. Anti-white and anti-straight chalkings are an entirely separate matter. While they may focus on existing stereotypes of white, straight people held by members of minority communities, they are not representative of a greater source of disprivilege within American society. White, straight people are the recipients of power. While this semester's chalkings may have placed white, straight people in a new position, forcing them to read about themselves in chalk, the effect is certainly not to instill fear of discrimination. As a white woman, I was not worried that the people who wrote about white folks in chalk would be able to institute a system in which I would be oppressed. I was not worried that the chalkings were part of a daily threat to my equal treatment. It is with this distinction in mind that I write this account of the writing, reception, removal and results of the chalkings.   The Purpose and The Administration's Response The purpose of the chalkings, as stated in the note sent to each of us through campus mail, was to raise consciousness, not about the particular effects of chalkings, but about the particular systemic racism and homophobia which underlies the hate speech found on our campus throughout the years. As the former coordinator of Diversity Coalition, I recognized that it was an attempt to create discussion and dialogue on campus which, in some ways, got more people talking than I had ever managed to persuade to talk about issues of oppression through any activity Diversity Coaltion had planned. However, the message did not seem to get through to the administration. They treated the chalkings as simply another act of hate speech, washing them away in accordance with a new protocol for chalkings emailed to us by Bob Gross earlier in the semester. Regardless of the new protocol, the effect of this removal looked incredibly suspicious. The chalkings were washed away faster than any chalkings previously written by homophobic or racist chalkers. They were not only treated as equally problematic by an administration that does not acknowledge the realities of the sentiments behind chalkings which I expressed above, but they seemed to have been removed more quickly as a sort of hyper-consideration for straight and white people.   The Chalkings as a Mirror Beyond this reality, however, is a much more disturbing dynamic which speaks both to a flaw in the design of the chalkings and in the ways in which our student community functions. The discussions which happened in the days after the chalkings did not produce an outcry of understanding and a call for action. While various members of support groups, including myself, met on the day of the chalking to discuss what had happened and talk about various actions, the conversation was difficult and little was accomplished. The boundaries and barriers created by mistrust between support groups and among their members simply did not allow for that sort of unity. Furthermore, the greater campus engaged in fragmented discussions. The boundaries of mistrust and ignorance prevented white students from engaging students of color in a discussion about the nature of the problems at Swarthmore as they prevented straight people from engaging queer students about homophobia on campus.   A Lack of Campus Dialogue Note that I am not arguing that self-segregation prevented our campus from having a thorough discussion of the issues. What I am suggesting is that three factors contributing to a fragmented campus dialogue were brought to the surface by the chalkings. First, the lack of communication between white students and students of color as well as straight students and queer students about issues of intolerance became clear. While students of color and queer students talk about these issues all of the time, it became clear that some white students and some straight students simply had no idea what was going on. Regardless of who we hang out with, communication on broader political issues does not have to be restricted to our friends. The chalkings evinced a fragmented campus dialogue resulting from a lack of this sort of interaction. Second, the chalkings unearthed proof that white and straight students on campus do not take initiative with regards to communication on issues of intolerance. This includes me. We forget that we need to be concerned and involved because racism and homophobia do touch our lives on a daily basis either because we unintentionally perpetuate it or because our hallmate is the victim of it. Finally, it uncovered a deep ethic of inaction on campus. While we like to talk about "Diversity", a deep lethargy with regard to programmatic change exists on campus. While a coalition of support and diversity groups on campus has begun to meet to create an agenda for change following the chalkings, there was no general call for action from the student body following the chalkings nor did the note from the administration suggest any thoughts about institutional change as a result of the chalkings.   The Method The chalkings were far from perfect. While they called for discussion, the authors of the chalkings did not take responsibility for facilitating that discussion because they chose to remain anonymous. While the very conscious note which accompanied the chalkings suggests that those responsible have spent a lot of time thinking about issues of intolerance, any leadership they could have supplied following the chalkings was negated by their anonymity. This left a campus, with the existing community fragmentations listed above, to react without positive political influence. While Diversity Coalition responded with dorm discussions a week later and the administration made an attempt sponsoring a speaker on racism from the President's Initiative on Race, these responses were blunt and reactionary attempts to deal with the issues uncovered by the chalkings. The authors would have shaped a far superior discussion on the issues because they were already sensitized to the issues and thinking about a methodology for enacting change. I recognize that the authors of the chalkings were angry and did not feel like being responsible for facilitating awareness in others. However, writing chalkings at all constituted an acceptance of responsibility. Given this fact, taking credit for the chalkings and helping to deal with the resulting conversation and action would have been a far better move for the authors of the chalkings.   A Conclusion Beyond any critique of the methodology lies the prejudice and bigotry protested by the chalkings and outlined in the examples of chalkings past. The school still has only 3 Latino professors out of a faculty of 157. We still do not have a harassment policy which adequately protects queer students from door burnings and personal attacks nor are there any questions about queer life on the senior exit questionaire. Students of color are still often asked to represent their race in classrooms and there are no Black Studies PDCs. It is this that so many of us have forgotten in the ensuing criticism in the aftermath of the chalkings. This article stands as an invitation to those newly awakened to the dynamics of intolerance on campus to get involved and informed and to the college administration to read the chalkings as a call for action.

Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback