The recent controversy surrounding the Black Mass has yet again forced the Harvard community to confront the limits of free speech in a liberal society. Similarly to when Tyga played at Yardfest and the University chose Michael Bloomberg as the commencement speaker, we are embroiled in a divisive and emotional debate. If we want to transform these heated disagreements into truly constructive dialogue, we should be deeply reflective about the positions we speak from, whether we stand with the majority, minority, or even outside the conflict altogether.
As someone who is neither Christian nor has personal claims against the Catholic Church, I have had the privilege of viewing the recent events from a position of intellectual curiosity. Since the arguments I could make do not implicate my own identity, my position as a mere onlooker has allowed me to form opinions and weigh in on discussion bearing far less personal cost than many of my peers do. When contributing thoughts, removed observers should strive to ground themselves in the positions of others in the discussion to better understand their views and avoid inadvertently insulting or alienating their beliefs. For me, this means reaching back into my own personal history. As a former Hindu, I consider how I would react to a student group using a puja, a Hindu prayer ritual, as the basis for its event.
While opposition movements can and should emerge in response to radical speech acts and a vigorous debate of the issue at hand is healthy, the majority should recognize the power it has in framing discourse. When discussion of volatile issues expands to include commentators from around the globe, it is very easy for condemnation of an opinion to swamp out the criticized opinion itself. If the minority voice does not receive the same breadth of coverage as the majority does, our discourse is liable to become skewed towards the majority’s conception of a Black Mass, which may differ significantly from the event originally proposed by the minority.
Responses such as official statements of condemnation should not work only to develop their own arguments against the event, but also to cite the original positions they address. Speakers in the majority who are firm in their convictions and rigorous in their arguments lose little by giving their opposition the strongest treatment possible. If we reduce our opposition to the Black Mass to a simple rejection of its historical implications at the expense of an interrogation of the ideals they currently embody, we will only end up reinforcing old lessons at the cost of learning new ones. Dr. Francis Clooney’s opinion piece is a strong example of a mindful critique that fairly voices and then responds to the arguments in favor of the Black Mass.
In turn, organizers of radical speech events should strive to clearly communicate their purpose and agenda. As the debate surrounding the Black Mass grew, I found myself wondering why the sponsors chose this ritual in particular, and what exactly the services would entail. An op-ed in the Crimson claims that historical proceedings have included infanticide and an old French novel gives another gruesome account, but it seems unlikely that Satanic Temple would have performed either in the modern day. To their credit, the Cultural Studies club has explained that this Black Mass aimed “to shed light on the beliefs of a marginalized group that has continuously been denied a voice in our society.” However, despite the fervent debate surrounding the event, there has been very little discussion of Satanism itself or the actual contents of a Black Mass.
The sponsors of the event could have openly described the proceedings of the Black Mass far before the event and explained the significance behind them. Such clarification allows for the exploration of compromises, such as the replacement of a consecrated host with a plain piece of bread. More broadly, it would have also given the community at large more substance with which to debate. Negotiating the fine line between satire and slander is an intricate undertaking, and all the more so when the speech act in question remains undefined. Clear communication also gives sponsoring organizations the opportunity to adapt to the changing public mood, and here would have given them a chance to educate the public even if the Black Mass never took place. All in all, a more nuanced approach may have turned our minds towards discussing the tenets of Satanism and the reasons it has been marginalized.
The Black Mass will certainly weigh on our mind in the weeks to come, and navigating its discussion with tact will be a difficult task. As we proceed, self-awareness and consideration can steer us around the pitfalls that come with such a polarizing topic.