Column by Shannon Frazer. Email sfrazer@kykernel.com.
Government shutdown was closely averted late Friday, and one of the main reasons for the delay hit close to home. Democrats and Republicans were at odds about whether to fund Planned Parenthood, which was a major contributing factor for the hang up.
According to an April 9 Washington Post article, “Democrats had wanted to cut billions less: They assented to the larger figure, and in return Republicans dropped a demand to take federal funds from the group Planned Parenthood.”
“Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion supplier,” the article said, but ironically, “in accordance with federal law, none of the money it gets from the government funds abortions.”
Thanks to the anti-abortion group Genocide Awareness Project that visited UK’s campus last week, students are well aware of the effects of the practice … or are they?
Some might classify the abortion display on campus last week as disturbing, repulsive and offensive. If you talked with any of the representatives who put up the graphic posters, though, they most likely would have expressed a deep regard for morality and social justice.
That is one group’s take on justice, but notice the negative feedback that results from the campus community, thanks to the overwhelming nature of the pictures. Start with an emotionally charged issue like abortion and put faces to it, and then you’ve got people’s attention.
Even though I didn’t have the opportunity to see the abortion display myself, based on classmates’ and co-workers’ reactions from being bombarded with such images while passing through campus, I wonder whether another tactic would have been more effective.
What these pro-life representatives seemed to overlook was that by portraying the extremely graphic results of abortion, they turn the ensuing conversation to how offensive particular images are, and not to who they are, what their organization represents and their ideologies.
The same can be said of some campus preachers, who shout hellfire in the free speech area of campus to any and all students who are willing to listen. Most are so turned off by the types of comments the preachers make that they are none too eager to begin any sort of civil discourse in return.
By no means am I an expert on how best to communicate a controversial issue, but I believe my own ideology could translate to more intelligent discussion and less dispute.
I recognize that social taboos, political complexities and religious divisions drive much of the disagreement between people groups today. But as a fellow human being, I propose we look at each side in those same basic terms: as human beings.
Everyone could use a little help in some way or another; there’s no denying that. But if you think you have a workable solution to better those people’s lives, whether that is to condemn those who choose to have abortions or who don’t follow your religious doctrine, consider for a moment whether your actions are at all effective in reaching out to those people you target.
Might it make more sense to promote your cause, rather than use scare tactics and thereby associate yourself with the negative images and words that you are speaking out against?
Really, who couldn’t use a good bit of help right now? Take a look within our own country, in our own city and even in our own backyards.
I recommend the alternate solution of seeking out organizations that present their agendas in more civilized context. Research how social justice groups “get it done,” and earn a loyal following. Take a cue from the slightly less flashy Voices for Planned Parenthood representatives, who sat opposite of the Genocide Awareness Project display.
If anti-abortion or pro-religious zeal is your mission, perhaps this could offer insight into how to reach out to people and turn words into positive actions.
That is what people want to remember: not how they were accosted by offensive images or a fanatical preacher, but how one person — representing many — helped them work toward a greater good.
Because of the government’s last-minute budget settlement, Planned Parenthood remains afloat (for now) and anti-abortion groups continue to carry out their social justice mission to counter the group.
But remember, even social justice is subjective. One group’s self-justified demonstration can be abhorrently offensive to another. Stand for what you believe in, but don’t use another group, event or idea as your scapegoat.
Shannon Frazer is a journalism senior. Email sfrazer@kykernel.com.
Shannon, can somebody please, please, please tell us how the Genocide Awareness Project got the nod from UK to set up their display where they did? I think I speak for many others when I ask, “Who is directly responsible for this and why?” These questions have gone unanswered for too long.
Shannon, can somebody please, please, please tell us how the Genocide Awareness Project got the nod from UK to set up their display where they did? I think I speak for many others when I ask, “Who is directly responsible for this and why?” These questions have gone unanswered for too long.
Mr. Miller,
I’ll tell you how the Genocide Awareness Project got displayed. It got the “okay” from UK just like the, crazy radical preachers, and marches of the Ku Klux Klan got okayed—through the first amendment. You, along with Ms. Frazer may be offended by these images, but like many other “offensive” rallies, protests, demonstrations, etc. the GOAL is to be offensive in order to get attention for a given cause. I don’t believe that the graphic images in question could be portrayed in a “civilized context,” because in whatever context it’s found, it’s going to be disturbing and offensive to many people. The images of bloody fetuses being sucked out of a woman’s body are going to be offensive and graphic no matter what “context” it’s found in. You don’t have to be a religious zealot to find these images heartbreaking and cruel. Similarly, you don’t have to be a “right-winger” fundamentalist to disagree with the practice and want to (in whatever way possible) stop the procedure. You can’t exactly sit down and have a cup of tea with people on opposing sides of the issue—it doesn’t work that way. Unfortunately, legislation doesn’t get passed by people being “polite” and understanding about this dispute. This divisive issue causes anger and rage on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and not just from Right religious fundamentalists.
While that’s all well and good, my question pertains to the “where” of the display. The University has a designated free speech zone (try to wrap your head around that one), wherein anyone can spout whatever hate speech they like, as it should be. The problem then, is that the GAP was allowed to set up their display outside of the prenominate free speech zone. By implication, the display’s location then imbues the GAP with an unofficial seal of university approval. That is my concern. It seems hypocritical to relegate certain people/things to the free speech zone while allowing others to set up shop elsewhere on campus. I appreciate your attempt at civilly walking the center line, but you aren’t fooling anyone.
Since UK is a public university, the entire campus is a “free speech zone” and speech (no matter how disturbing) anywhere on campus is protected by the 1st Amendment.
The “free speech zone” by the Student Center is a meaningless and redundant designation and was only designed to attempt to corral people into one area and prevent displays such as the recent GAP from taking place in more highly visible areas. Using the “free speech zone” is simply a suggestion, not a requirement. Those who use the “free speech zone” are simply being polite and following the unofficial and unenforceable requests of the university. The location of the GAP display has nothing do with the university granting special privileges to certain groups while relegating other to the free speech zones; the university can ask demonstrators to use the free speech zone but there is absolutely no legal requirement that they do so.
Following kyproud’s ideas, I want to let you know that GAP was brought here by a student group and approved by the UK Director of Space Reservations. And, along with kyproud, the free speech area is there for people not invited, ideally. Therefore, since they were invited by a group, GAP could be placed where we so chose to place them. – UK Students for Life President.