> I don't mean that I think the professor's a racist, but that he's offering this as a weak excuse for a poorly-thought-out publicity grab. Of course that is

> I don't mean that I think the professor's a racist, but that he's offering this as a weak excuse for a poorly-thought-out publicity grab. Of course that is what it is but that isn't the same thing as something we should censor as a society. It was pretty clear he wasn't trying to actively intimidate people. > Consider a paralell situation: I gather a vast number of texts condemning Nazism and fascism, and fashion them into the shape of a giant Swastika, which I then install across the street from a Synagogue. The small-scale content (the individual anti-fascist textual works that pattern the surface) are not going to deliver anything like the same impact as the large overall shape, which (like the figure of the Klansman) is still a potent historical symbol of oppression and intimidation. Making a large thing that is guaranteed to elicit a fearful reaction and then complaining that people should have approached the fearful thing for a closer look before complaining about it doesn't strike me as a very effective way to communicate. Simply because it wasn't effective isn't the same thing as it should be censored. The core problem with your argument is you are escalating in both parallel situations. Colleges are intended to be places of learning and for such "social artists" [no matter how shitty they are at it] to put things on display. He didn't go and seek out a Church that primarily services the African American community and put it across the street. > Or an even simpler parallel: if I run at you brandishing a knife Once again, you are comparing apples to oranges by escalating.