The annual Day of Silence brings with it a few individuals who claim to participate but don't always keep quiet. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Emma Anselin looks back at last week's event and argues that silence doesn't always have to be golden to get the message across. It all depends on the motives behind the silence and the speech.

By Emma Anselin
Gargoyle assistant editor
Posted Wednesday, May 3, 2006, The OG, opinions

English teacher Steve Rayburn was the only Uni faculty member on this year's roster of Day of Silence participants. He donned black and wore a rainbow pin with pride.

And he talked.

As a participant myself, this did not bother me.

But when a subbie bearing the mark of the protest passed me in the hallway, jabbering loudly about some all-important recent development in the third-floor power structure, I was definitely irked.

The difference in my reactions was not due to some inner brown-nosing motivation. The disparity didn't even relate to Rayburn's legitimate obligations as a teacher to speak. Sure, Rayburn did not truly have the option of completely withholding his words. He ran the risk of limiting the learning process of his students, who would not necessarily support his cause. But all of us have daily responsibilities to communicate.

No, the reason for my acceptance of Rayburn's utterings and my condemnation of the subfreshman's was the difference in their attitudes.

When asked a question, Rayburn did not glance furtively around the room and shrug in surrender. He just responded. Of course, Rayburn didn't run through the hallways screaming in defiance. But he also didn't make a show of trying to keep the silence sometimes but giving up when the protest became inconvenient. He was very obviously showing his support for the cause, but not necessarily participating in the silence aspect of the protest.

The subbie, on the other hand, looked relatively guilty when a nearby junior exclaimed, “Hey, you've got the ribbon. You're cheating.” She shut up for a few seconds, and then continued her conversation in a lower tone. She was obviously attempting to stay silent to some degree. It was fairly easy to place this subfreshman among the category of students who refuse to speak at opportune times, such as during algebra class, but chat it up during lunch and passing periods.

The teacher and the student both affiliated themselves with the Day of Silence despite their inability to maintain silence. Nevertheless, one took the protest as an opportunity to display his support for the cause, even though he needed to speak. The other used the protest for personal purposes, as an excuse to stay silent at convenient moments.

The organizers of this year's Day of Silence placed an especially strong emphasis on complete involvement in the event. Participants were required to attend a Gay-Straight Alliance meeting, where the club officers effectively emphasized the importance of maintaining the silence. Protests require some sacrifice, and the Day of Silence only reaches its full effect when the participants and surrounding community experience the true frustration of not being able to communicate, in recognition of the silence that the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community must endure each day.

So to those who claim they possess no silence skills, I would say that this protest requires some personal suffering and effort in order to make both an inner impact and an impact on the outside student body. Nevertheless, if individuals feel they are truly unable to stifle their vocal chords, either for logistical reasons (in the case of Rayburn) or something else, I do not believe that the guidelines of this protest should prevent them from showing their support of the cause.

The Day of Silence is an excellent opportunity for individuals to come together as a unified group to recognize the importance of LGBT freedom. In fact, it is more effective for individuals to display their support when the country's attention is already drawn to the cause, than on other sporadic and more obscure occasions. If you must talk, it is better to show support than hide it. The surrounding community will realize that you are not associated with the silence itself, and thus will not see your speech as lessening the impact of the protest.

But do not go half way. There are far too many people who stay silent during their first-period math class under the context of protest, but feel free to talk in the hallways. I believe it is understandable to wear the ribbon and still talk, in order to continue showing support even when complete silence is logistically or physically impossible. But I thoroughly condemn those who use the Day of Silence for their own purposes, keeping the silence every once in a while, but only when it is most convenient.

The surrounding community does associate these individuals with the silence, and their frequent lapses into hallway gossip both discredit and destroy the full impact of the protest. This very token allegiance to the Day of Silence can only distort and weaken the power of the message.