Possible Nazi Graffiti Spotted in Leavey
Following three recent incidents of vandalism on campus, a small silver cross with a symbol resembling the Nazi SS logo overlaying it appeared on an exterior wall of the Leavey Center sometime before Monday afternoon.
As of last night, the graffiti was still visible. It depicts a silver cross with a jagged, nearly-vertical “s” on either side, closely matching a symbol for the Nazi SS, or Schutzstaffel, paramilitary during World War II. The symbol is painted on a north-facing brick wall of Leavey, underneath the large, cement stairs which lead up to the student center.
According to an entry in the Department of Public Safety’s blotter, which is sent to The Hoya weekly for publication, DPS received a report concerning graffiti on one of the Leavey Center’s brick walls at 6:08 p.m. on Monday. When asked for comment, Sgt. Joseph Smith, crime prevention coordinator for DPS, said that he could not comment on the nature of the graffiti because an investigation is ongoing.
As of 1:30 a.m. on Friday, no e-mail or Public Safety Announcement had been sent out to students regarding the incident. University spokesperson Julie Bataille said that she was not aware of the incident.
Julia Shindel (COL ’10) noticed the symbol on Monday and alerted several people on campus. Since then, a campus-wide group has formed to address the situation. The group, which includes members of the Catholic Daughters, the Black Student Alliance, Georgetown Solidarity Committee, along with Shindel, met yesterday to discuss the situation, Shindel said.
In an official statement signed simply “Georgetown Students,” the group announced that they will be holding a “Day of Unity” event which will take place in Red Square on Monday.
“We might all have our differences at Georgetown, but none of us tolerate hate,” the statement read. “A few days ago, a Nazi SS party symbol and cross were discovered on the side wall of the Leavey Center, and we students, representing all identities and groups, have a response: We hear your free speech, but no thanks.”
The rally will consist of two large sheets in Red Square one entitled “love” and the other “hate,” on which students are encouraged to write and paint their feelings. Shindel added that free hugs will also be available.
“It’s going to be instead of like a negative response, a positive one, of promoting love and to show that there is no tolerance for hate on this campus,” Shindel said.
This most recent graffiti follows three incidents of paint found on the statues of the Blessed Mother on Copley Lawn and on the statue of Jan Karski, which sits outside of White Gravenor Hall.
According to the DPS blotter, an investigation is being conducted by the DPS Office of Investigations and no suspects or witnesses have yet been identified.
Mar 27 2009 at 12:09 p.m.
There was also a swastika is the Village A Elevator. This is ridiculous....I have not idea what our school is coming too...
Mar 27 2009 at 12:33 p.m.
"Shindel added that free hugs will also be available."
YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 27 2009 at 12:41 p.m.
"According to the DPS blotter, an investigation is being conducted by the DPS Office of Investigations and no suspects or witnesses have yet been identified."
SECURITY CAMERAS would probably help identify suspects.
Mar 27 2009 at 1:58 p.m.
"We hear your free speech, but no thanks."
I mean, let's just be clear - the symbol is horrible, but the reason it should be erased is because it's graffitti. If this were a poster - in the free speech zone of Red Square - it would have to be tolerated.
Saying "no thanks" to free speech one disagrees with is dangerous.
That having been said, I think the response is absolutely on point - more, better speech.
Also - any idea if the other campus vandalism is connected to this? Think about it - Jan Karski had a role in exposing the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust, and the Virgin Mary is, well, Christian.
Mar 27 2009 at 2:31 p.m.
Let's get the iPod vigilante after this guy! He's clearly more competent than DPS and the University.
Mar 27 2009 at 5:09 p.m.
The response should be more and better speech? What liberal kool-aid are you drinking? The response should be to find these people, punish their sorry asses to the fullest extent, and make it very clear that Nazism is not a form of free speech or ideology that will be tolerated here. Not all speech should be heard.
Mar 27 2009 at 5:17 p.m.
Yeah.. the student code of conduct makes a fairly clear distinction between allowing speech that may be "offensive" and speech that is "grossly offensive" on certain grounds:
"1. The right of free speech and expression does not include unlawful activity or activity that endangers or imminently
threatens to endanger the safety of any member of the community or any the community’s physical facilities, or any
activity that disrupts or obstructs the functions of the University or imminently threatens such disruption or obstruction.
2. Moreover, expression that is indecent or is grossly obscene or grossly offensive on matters such as race, ethnicity,
religion, gender, or sexual orientation is inappropriate in a university community and the University will act as it deems
appropriate to educate students violating this principle."
Since it's vandalism, it violates the law, which violates point number one.
Since it can be construed to be "grossly offensive" on matters religious, it most certainly violates point number two.
Mar 27 2009 at 5:45 p.m.
Banning speech is a coward's response. I doubt there is anyone on campus who supports Nazi ideology, but if there were one, by god, let them compete in the marketplace of free ideas.
They are miserable merchants of unwanted ideas; their wares remain unsold.
Simply because their existence offends many - or perhaps all - of the community is no reason to ban it. It is a very slippery slope to go down that road - and no court would uphold it -- c.f. National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 432 US 43 (1977).
“This commitment to free expression must be unwavering, because there exist many situations where, in the short run, it appears advantageous to limit speech to solve pressing social problems, such as discriminatory harassment. If a balancing approach is applied, these pressing and tangible short run concerns are likely to outweigh the more amorphous and long run benefits of free speech. However, the suppression of speech, even where the speech’s content appears to have little value and great costs, amounts to governmental thought control.”
Mar 27 2009 at 5:49 p.m.
What if someone wanted to post the Muhammed Cartoons a few years ago when the issue - and its censorship - was at its height? That would be 'grossly offensive' to some members of the Georgetown community. So, too, is H*yas for Choice. So too is the Vagina Monologues (and their posters which shouted swears and other vulgarities). So too are many groups and ideas.
Mar 27 2009 at 5:57 p.m.
Funny thing about 1st Amendment cases -- they only apply to the GOVERNMENT's perogative to limit free expression. They dont presume to restrict a private organization like Georgetown.
In any case, graffiti almost always satisfies the time, place, and manner doctrine so that even the government could regulate it.
Mar 27 2009 at 6:21 p.m.
Brother Hand:
Georgetown can restrict whatever it wants to. I'm arguing what Georgetown should do. I would hope that Georgetown, in preparing us as men and women ready to face the real world and challenge ourselves emotionally and academically, would not shield us from speech with which we may disagree - even disagree vehemently.
No one is (or few people are) arguing it should sponsor such speech - which is why H*yas for Choice can use the free speech zone but not receive university funds.
If we hold that the University should start censoring things, it's very unclear at where it should stop, or on what principled basis. The best answer to bad speech is better speech, because I have to tell you - in the real world, we can't just banish those ideas we disagree with.
Mar 27 2009 at 10:19 p.m.
free hugs?! lol that's pathetic. get over it.
Mar 28 2009 at 12:46 a.m.
I'm pretty sure that "We here your free speech, but no thanks" refers to a rejection of the MESSAGE of the free speech, not of free speech itself.
Hugs ARE pathetic.
Mar 29 2009 at 4:04 p.m.
COL 08, did you just compare the vagina monologues to the Nazis? seriously?
Mar 29 2009 at 5:25 p.m.
It is much easier to cut something down than to envision creative alternatives. These organizers have devoted tremendous thought and effort to this day, which they purposely planned this way in order to draw the attention of the GU community. Rather than opting for a traditional lecture format in a cold lecture hall, they opted to do something that necessitates action, exchange, dialogue, artistic expression and speech. The alternative ways of communicating the message of Unity and love were designed and tailored to meet the needs of many of us who, frankly, are tired of having a "discussion" merely mean a few people atop the institutional hierarchy tell us what 'unity' or 'peace' means. Remember: people learn in a variety of ways - and for many of us, the legitimacy of a message is not exclusively hinged on the words of a government official or PhD.
The people who put such tremendous work, and thought, and passion into this day have carefully planned the strategy for this day. The intellect and organizing skills of these individuals are of great value to this community, as they have demonstrated over and over again that great changes and strides for the Georgetown community are made not through cutting down, but by coming together, stepping 'outside the box,' and by taking risks. Look at the successful Living Wage campaign of 2005, the Out for Change Campaign of 2007 garnering an LGBT center. Those campaigns took alot of creative energy, risk-taking, and organizers encountered ridicule from nay-sayers. But at the end of the day, they were resounding successes, and tremendous contributions for the Georgetown community. Let me remind you all that this is event is not exactly risk-taking. No one will be expelled from school for this action. All we are trying to do for this action is add some creativity, some life, some spunk to the actions. If you are allowing yourself to be completely detracted, distressed and sidelined from the event's goals due to these small aspects of the event day, than you might want to re-focus and re-priortize.
I commend all the work put into this event, and encourage us to keep in mind that the overriding goal of Unity day includes creativity, innovation, and freedom of artistic expression.
Mar 29 2009 at 9:38 p.m.
Kudos to SFS 10! Something not mainstream and conformist, and suddenly everyone is running madly in circles!
PEOPLE. There is a NAZI on this campus. Possibly MANY. The article brings up issues such as HATE and FREE SPEECH, threats to groups and peoples of all races, religions, cultures, sexual orientations, etc., and all you can do is make idiotic comments about one mention of free hugs in an entire article about a HATE SYMBOL. So much for intellectual Georgetown students. No change EVER would have happened had not some people looked past a small little bubble and made some noise and brought attention to issues. If you don't like getting hugged, I am sorry for you, but fine...yet to spend your time and energy spewing about how "lame" hugs are instead of discussing the implications of these symbols or even getting involved in the responses to it - well, that is just embarrassing. Those of you complaining about it...what are you doing to help the cause? To stop the hate?
Nothing?
Right. I figured.
Mar 30 2009 at 8:02 p.m.
Anonymous....if you don't like America's ideal of freedom of speech, you're always free to leave. And if you think "free speech" is an exclusively or even predominantly liberal idea (in the modern, Democratic-party-leaning sense of the word), you've had your head under the sand for the past few decades.
America: Our Worst Critics Prefer to Stay
As graffiti, it's technically vandalism, and thus could be prosecuted.
However, if it HAD been made in a legal manner, it would be in the interest of free speech to ignore it and move on.
And yes, Learned Hand is right. Legally, Georgetown has a great deal of freedom to restrict our speech. However, when faced with a choice between whether they support free speech or whether they pretend to, cases such as Nazi symbols are where you see what side they stand on. It wouldn't be illegal; it would rather be merely regrettable.
You don't defeat evil ideas by silencing them. You defeat them by showing people why they are evil.
Mar 30 2009 at 8:06 p.m.
Those criticizing the "free hugs" comment have a very under-developed sense of irony and humor. I found it hilarious.
Mar 31 2009 at 5:41 a.m.
of course it's funny. but it wasn't mean to be.
Apr 01 2009 at 5:34 a.m.
Yes, it clearly was. Hence my disappointment with all of those comments.
Apr 01 2009 at 8:13 a.m.
About the worst thing that could be done is what is being done: giving attention to the incident. A million and one things happen on campus each week; why fuel the fire of some miscreant by reporting on what was before probably some random act of inanity, but is now likely to be a repeated piece of conduct, given the 'payoff' that he or she (almost certainly he) is getting from it (i.e., news coverage).
Apr 01 2009 at 10:58 p.m.
It wasn't random, it was the latest in a string of such instances: http://thehoya.com/node/18605>