On Thursday, Sept. 13, there was an “interesting” opinion piece in The Crimson White. I say “interesting” not because I found this argument particularly insightful or intelligent, but rather because of how completely foolish and illogically constructed it was. The author of the aforementioned article discussed the recent chalking by Bama Students for Life, as well as the chalking done in response to them.

The author criticized these chalkings because, in his view, they did not change anyone’s opinion; they did nothing but “make people angry,” and, apparently, were not “meaningful dialogue,” but were merely rhetoric.

First of all, the author of the original piece has no way whatsoever of proving the first two of these points, unless he is a mind-reader, in which case he probably has better things he could be doing instead of probing peoples’ subconscious for their opinions on pro-life chalkings. Secondly, the final point about meaningful dialogue versus rhetoric is completely subjective.

Now, if one does support the author’s argument thus far, then one may be wondering what exactly does construe “meaningful dialogue.” Fortunately, the author cites three examples of what he considers to fulfill this: last year’s protests on the promenade relating to social inequality, HB 56 and the personhood bill. According to the author, these protests were constructive because they raised awareness on the issues and engaged the student body.

“Now, wait a minute,” you may be saying to yourself, “aren’t the chalkings raising awareness of an issue as well?” That’s what I thought, too, but apparently the author disagrees. Apparently, only by getting out with signs, megaphones and chants can you raise awareness, and the written word is not a legitimate means of political speech. (Side note: I feel horrible for the people who were attempting to learn in B.B. Comer, especially those in difficult foreign language classes, who had to listen to that while they attempted to focus).

I sincerely doubt that this is what the author, a columnist in this publication, was arguing; most likely, he meant that only raising awareness for causes that liberals traditionally support are constructive political action.

The author concludes his flawed argument by stating that loud, disruptive (liberal) protests are the correct way to engage the campus, and that silent ones that do not actually bother anyone are filled with “insults, mantras, fear-mongering, and hatred.” (Huh, that’s funny, I’m pretty sure I heard people shouting the mantra “si se puede” during that HB 56 protest.)

Now, I’m not saying that the students who choose to protest with signs and megaphones are wrong about their methods, nor am I saying the people who choose to utilize chalking are wrong. We live in America, and we enjoy the full privileges of living under the First Amendment. I love that we’re all able to express our opinions, and I love that we’re allowed to present our thoughts to one another in order to allow our ideas to grapple in the public consciousness.

Whether you choose to write your message out on the sidewalk or take to the street, go out and make your voice heard. To quote Voltaire, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” Even if what you have to say is written in chalk.

Adam Rawlins is a senior majoring in political science.