Junior biology major

Having watched last week’s A.J. Hurwitz public forum in its entirety, I now share the feelings of disappointment many of the spectators that day felt. My disappointment, however, is not directed at the leadership but at the many students who indignantly lambasted them.

To be honest, I understand their rage. It does seem disappointing that someone who has so profoundly affected this campus did not have to face any formal penalties. This, however, does not mean Hurwitz has not or will not face any external consequences from this incident; but to personally attack the president and his staff for presenting this cadre of “student activists” with anything short of Hurwitz’s summary execution is beyond the pale.

To many who have watched or even attended the forum, I might have just said something shocking.

Certainly, the students who spoke up at the forum did more than just whine about the results of the Hurwitz investigation; some might be quick to point out that many of the students — through dramatically rehearsed and scripted monologues — made mention of concerns for their safety, hypothesizing that not punishing Hurwitz for his support of rape would send a message that rape is not taken seriously on the campus.

This is nonsense.

One would be hard-pressed to find a place that takes sexual assault cases more seriously than state universities do. In the numerous columns I have written in the past, I have even noted how many state universities’ policies, including this one’s, even deny the alleged sexual offender basic rights to due process before expelling him from school due to sometimes questionable allegations.

According to police investigations, the Hurwitz email, written more than 14 months ago, has not resulted in any hate crimes or overt acts of sexual assault. Just like the threats student speakers made about not attending the University of Maryland anymore if they did not get their way, the words Hurwitz wrote were empty ones.

I do not deny that those who made those remarks about their safety feel a sense of danger, but that danger is not imminent, and certainly could not come from the results of the email. Some might posit that anything incendiary said in the forum could only reveal the disappointment of the student body and cultivate discussion about pervasive issues regarding racism and sexual assault; but when the university’s leadership is so blatantly blamed for endangering students, a much more restrictive and vindictive dialogue ensues, and such a dialogue was exactly what happened.

The most painful points of the forum were when students openly questioned, criticized and wrote off the role the First Amendment should play on the campus.

Many applauded one student who suggested implementing speech codes on our campus and another who suggested we not use the words “unity” and “civility” in social discourse. To me, the most painful moment was when no one spoke out when one student shouted, “I don’t understand how the Constitution has to be university policy.”

Ironically, this forum, and perhaps the entire fallout from the Hurwitz email, revealed more about our student body’s contempt for constitutional rights than Greek life’s proclivity for insensitivity. Hurwitz might have targeted certain racial groups and an entire gender, but an attack on our inalienable right to freedom of speech is axiomatically more offensive. Those who do not believe this only have themselves to blame.

It is not surprising that college students have often adopted the mentality of living in the moment, taking immediate action and ignoring any dissent for the sake of what they perceive as “advancement.” This mindset is both seemingly fashionable and avant-garde. But perhaps a bit of foresight is what is needed here, for I often wonder which scenario is worse: A society that is nonchalant about hate speech, or a society that is willing to eliminate hate speech by curtailing our rights.

Patrick An, assistant opinion editor, is a junior biology major. He can be reached at patandbk@gmail.com.