At a time when universities should be encouraging open dialogue and self-expression, GU-Q’s recent censorship of a seemingly innocuous movie quote has left many of us questioning whether our school is instead choosing to stifle speech out of a misplaced need to shield us. Our club, Future is Female, planned a campus hangout to watch “Legally Blonde,” a film that celebrates women’s resilience in a male-dominated field as part of our efforts to inspire young women to see themselves in legal careers. We chose the iconic quote, “You got into Harvard Law? What, like it’s hard?” to feature on our promotional flyer. However, GU-Q’s Communications Office intervened, asking us to remove or alter it. The reason? They felt the word “hard” might have “sexual connotations.”
It’s hard to know whether to laugh or be outraged. Since when has a simple expression become too risqué for a university campus? The administration seems so hyper-aware of sexual innuendo that they’ve begun seeing it where it doesn’t exist. Their fear that the word “hard” might somehow offend or unsettle people speaks volumes not about the quote, but about a troubling impulse to sexualize language in ways that ultimately restrict student speech.
This kind of hyper-sensitivity transforms an everyday expression of grit into something provocative, something from which we need “protection.” Instead of trusting students to interpret a phrase in its harmless, universally understood context, GU-Q has managed to make the word “hard” off-limits. This impulse to cleanse our language not only infantilizes us but raises a disturbing question: why must every phrase be scrutinized for possible innuendo? In filtering out any language that could, in the most strained reading, be misunderstood.
The message is clear: there’s a growing expectation that we sanitize everything we say, lest it be deemed offensive or suggestive. This approach stifles any sense of genuine, open expression. The phrase “what, like it’s hard?” is a witty remark on ambition, not an invitation to interpret hidden meanings. But by imposing their own misplaced fears on the words we choose, GU-Q effectively casts a shadow over innocent expressions. And in doing so, they’re creating an atmosphere in which students must constantly second-guess even the most straightforward statements.
This isn’t just about a single word – it’s about a creeping pattern of restrictions on genuine student expression, imposed under the guise of “appropriate” messaging. An article in the Georgetown Gazette, “Questions of Priorities: The Hidden Cost of Silence,” pointed to this disturbing trend, where the administration’s cautious approach increasingly restricts freedom of discussion on campus. And now, it’s reached our events celebrating women’s achievements. Do they truly believe we’d descend into chaos over a famous movie quote if left unedited? This quiet silencing of self-expression does nothing but stifle creativity, build mistrust between students and administration, and drain the impact of well-intentioned initiatives.
If we can’t even use common phrases without a committee vetting them for “appropriateness,” then where does this leave campus dialogue? How can we learn to engage in meaningful, real-world conversations if every word is scrutinized for potential connotation? Rather than fostering an environment of trust and openness, GU-Q’s approach implies that students and the communities around us are incapable of understanding words as they are. It’s time for the university to reassess its approach to student expression, shielding us from words like “hard” doesn’t make us more resilient; it only makes us hesitant to speak. True freedom of expression means recognizing that not every word carries an ulterior meaning and that sometimes, a quote is just a quote.
Comments