Editorial: Pornography and USG funds

The proposed event is a fully legitimate use of USG money. First, no money is being spent on the pornography itself; rather, the funds will pay for the speaker and other logistical costs. Second, countless groups obtain funds from the Projects Board to sponsor a wide variety of events. The decision to award funds to LeTS was no different from any other such decision made every year.

Critics have argued, though, that the proposed event is just not worth holding. But as an academic institution, the University is committed to fostering intellectual inquiry, in all subjects, from all perspectives. The Project Board’s funding is a valuable means of promoting this goal. It would be entirely undermined, though, were the Projects Board to screen out perspectives in conflict with current prejudices. The relative merits of various ideas and fields of inquiry must be determined through free and open debate, but this is impossible unless even the most unorthodox perspectives are heard along with the most orthodox ones. The University should not play agenda politics; that the LeTS event will promote campus discourse is reason enough to fund it.

Some critics have advanced more specific critiques — while they do not object to events on pornography in general, they feel that actually showing pornographic clips is gratuitously offensive. Showing such clips, however, will help illustrate the discussion and make the event more informative for attendees. Admittedly, some people will be offended by the clips, but it is difficult to find a controversial view that will not offend somebody. Earlier this year, for example, Whig-Clio hosted the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and displayed the cartoon he drew of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban — an image so offensive that it provoked protests across the globe. The critics’ arguments are particularly ironic in this case, for part of the point of the proposed LeTS event is to argue that pornography is not in fact offensive to women. Censoring the presentation, then, would amount to prejudging the merits of the ideas presented.

Of course, groups should not attempt to unnecessarily insult segments of the campus community. In this case, however, screening pornographic clips will undeniably aid in the presentation of controversial ideas and promotion of campus discussion. Ultimately, offending some is the inevitable cost of open discourse, and it is worth the price.

Shivani Radhakrishnan ’11 recused herself from voting on this editorial.