OUR OPINION: The chancellor’s absence and the lack of information about the incident prior to the rally hurt the rally’s message of unity.

Students and faculty gathered at the Unity rally Thursday afternoon in response to the threat written on the Free Expression Tunnel early Wednesday morning about shooting the president-elect, which was next to a KKK symbol.

Several student leaders and administrators spoke at the event, denouncing the language as harmful and outside of the intent of freedom of speech.

Yet only after an impromptu speech from Tracey Ray, director of Multicultural Student Affairs, were students able to appreciate the fact that what was written on the Free Expression Tunnel was a threat, not free speech.

The University’s highest official, Chancellor James Oblinger, was not even present at the rally.

Administrators cannot say events like the incident at the Free Expression Tunnel are learning opportunities for the University when they release only controlled amounts of information and do not attempt to engage students in continuous dialogue throughout the year, not just after incidents like Wednesday’s.

Students who were not satisfied with the afternoon rally could have attended a second gathering near the wall where the offensive language was.

Hate speech has and continues to be a problem at the University — the noose in the Sullivan Shops in Nov. 2007, the alleged KKK meeting in September, negative Facebook statuses and anti-Obama fliers in Caldwell Hall are all reminders of the prejudice that still exists on campus.

If the University wants to address these problems and mobilize students to push back against hateful, intimidating speech, it needs to be more proactive and forthcoming with information surrounding the events.

Administrators had facilities come out Wednesday morning and paint over the slurs in the Free Expression Tunnel without releasing specifics on what was said. Without explaining the threatening, intimidating nature of the messages on the tunnel walls, the University’s actions may have come across as infringement on free speech.

The University cannot expect to establish an informed, balanced dialogue on hate speech and free speech if students do not know what the difference between the two is. Having two rallies also defeats the purpose of unity -Ñstudents need to collaborate and include as many components as possible in the rally.

It’s time for students and administrators to do more than rally and make speeches about fighting to keep our campus free of hateful, intimidating language.

Senior administrators need to give students a straightforward description of what type of hate speech the University will not tolerate and stop trying to control the information surrounding such incidents.