Chalk it up to vivacity
is for boards, not buildings," Feb. 7
To the Editor:
Mr. Donato's word choice of banning‚ anteceding and reprimanding‚ for chalk work on campus certainly reflects his strong contempt. But would that punishment fit the crime? Who owns the schools and for whom was the school built? Is chalk-material in need of censorship?
Donato cites the fact that the chalk takes a pressure washer to remove, but what's the point? I painted houses last summer and we pressure washed each one. If someone can prove to me that this is expensive, time-consuming and difficult, I'd really love to hear it.
What is the likelihood of a chalk contagion on campus? If everyone started using chalk, how effective would the advertising become? Banning such a practice is akin to banning or censoring anything. When a drug is banned, it is driven to the underground and, if one drug becomes too unprofitable for the pusher (parallel to chalk's ineffectiveness if overexploited), then another will take its place. The University Students' Council should endorse chalk work as [a way of] reclaiming our space and not open doors to more destructive, albeit effective, means other than posting on overcrowded bulletin boards consumed by timeless ads or posters for weekly meetings.
I would be interested in a study on the space allotted for corporate advertisement on campus, compared to student space. I honestly don't see much wrong in student groups using such advertising, particularly when the events are free, non-drinking and are of social significance. This is neither a Greek community drinking party nor a corporate pitch for Pepsi.
We pay for the buildings designed for us to use when learning. Promoting events where more learning shall occur cannot fairly be assessed as vandalism in need of censorship. Besides, the buildings we did needed more vivacity to them.
Huron University College
Honours ICS II