I arrived on this campus a strong-willed, opinionated first-year student; I was proud to boast to my new roommate that I enjoyed a good argument, and I had little awareness that my opinions could change or be proved incorrect. I decided to put these inclinations to use and apply for a work-study position with this small, campus newspaper.

I quickly made it known that opinion articles were my forte and jumped right in, covering topics ranging from major political discussions such as kneeling during the national anthem and the 2016 presidential election to insignificant arguments regarding hookup culture and pit bulls. Perhaps my most notable, and equally regrettable, article was on the topic of feminism and the Women’s March.

It would be an understatement to say this article highlighted an opinion which many found unfavorable around campus. I received a few dirty looks, two responses in later issues, and even a curious letter arriving from a pastor in Texas. I felt attacked. What I failed to understand at the time was that that was exactly the way I had made others feel in my article. I did not recognize how a 500-word article in The Weather Vane could create such a disturbance, and that my belittling of the rights of women like myself was genuinely disgusting.

Once I realized the weight carried by my words, I regretted writing the article—not because I was chastised for my budding, independent thoughts, but because I understood that I had hurt people through them. My intention was never to offend anybody, and for that, I am deeply sorry. I no longer hold the same convictions regarding women’s rights as I did during my first year at EMU. I have found myself inclined to now withhold from arguments until I am fully educated on the subjects at hand.

My fresh disdain for discourse led me to end my role in The Weather Vane in lieu of less controversial endeavors. It has been this disdain that makes me cringe every week I read a loaded opinion piece in the newspaper and further recoil for every response article that is written the following week as these rebuttals frequently forget that there are people behind the words they are counterarguing.

In the last edition, however, there was an article I could not allow myself to ignore. It was the latest in a trend of harmful opinion pieces this semester. While I vehemently disagree with the opinion presented, I want to make it clear I am not seeking to attack anyone holding this position or the writer himself, nor am I stating a counterargument. I trust the EMU community to research and develop their own independent thoughts.

I admittedly was not on campus when N.T. Wright came to speak last semester. I was, however, keeping up with the drama through limited Wi-Fi while on cross-cultural in China. I recall seeing powerful photos of protesters in front of Lehman Auditorium and similarly messaged sidewalk chalk flooding my newsfeed.

Conversely, I remember seeing passersby seemingly ignore the protestors and the subsequent chalk messages fueled with hate the next day. I felt uncomfortable returning to campus in December knowing the potential threats and ongoing discourse. I consider myself fortunate to have been miles away during the brunt of the controversy.

It is my understanding that Safe Space planned to hold an event with Wright as a place for open discussion regarding his views. Safe Space inquired about such a dialogue three separate times. This was to be an opportunity for everybody to be heard and to not silence anyone who might have disagree with each other, but Wright refused to speak on the issue, leading students to feel silenced and alienated. Maybe he should have taken the advice of last week’s article and been willing to talk to people with whom he disagreed.

While it may be a fantasy to live in a world where there is not discourse, it is not a fantasy to desire to live in one, especially on a college campus, where you can live freely without fear of being silenced, alienated, or offended. I was offended by last week’s article regardless of its statement that I have no right to be. Just as you have the right to offend, I have the right to be offended and vice versa. There are, however, ways to present opinions without attacking personal stories and experiences.

I firmly believe the opinion page could be an agent that fosters inclusive campus diversity and illuminates voices who feel silenced, but by publishing arguments scarce on facts but bursting with harmful statements, we, as a community, are missing an opportunity. For the sake of The Weather Vane, I ask that we collectively begin to truly think about the words we are typing and ask ourselves if they are harmful. It is far easier to respect an opinion that is well-researched and empathetic than one that makes any one person feel attacked. Maybe if we all followed this rule, there would be no need for the constant discourse; The Weather Vane would truly feel like a safe space.