Avery Adelini is a biological sciences sophomore and political opinion columnist for Mustang News. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Mustang Media Group.
Outdoor thrift shops, debate booths and petition tables are often found in high-traffic areas on our campus. Some visitors— shoutout to carrot guy — aren’t even people! Of these many nomads, one stands out: the cardboard sign-wearing gentleman who stands outside 1901 Marketplace every Friday afternoon, yelling about drunkards and fornicators to anybody and everybody who passes by.
I’ll just say what everyone’s thinking: Why is he here? Does he think that he’s winning anyone over by being loud? What is his actual purpose? It’s these kinds of questions that brought me to sit in the UU and listen to him ramble for an entire hour. What I took away from this, however, wasn’t that I needed to confess my sins or drop to my knees and repent.
One thing was clear: He wanted negative attention, and boy was he receiving it. It was apparent that the confrontation was a means to an end: a large audience that, despite their stark opposition to him, was listening to what he was saying. Despite appearing resistant on the surface, this campus preacher was using fear, guilt and outrage to draw a crowd, effectively controlling the situation by provoking students into engaging with him. The experience was a reminder that we should question the motives behind a message before allowing it to shape our response and recognize that not every provocation deserves one.
I refuse to believe the campus preacher, who aptly named himself Professor Nate of Bible 101, takes himself seriously. His presentation was much more akin to a performance than an educational opportunity, with large “Gotcha!” moments and extreme blanket statements designed to provoke people. Every claim was manufactured to offend someone, ensuring that people would argue back and remain gathered around him. But that’s the point, wasn’t it? He wasn’t trying to persuade the crowd; he was trying to keep one.
“He’s a spectacle,” said Jack Campos Struthers, an environmental management freshman who was part of the gathered crowd. “You come here and sit and watch and even though you don’t agree with it, it still makes you think about what he’s saying.”
“Professor Nate” is a prime example of all press being good press. The loud arguments draw in the crowd, while outrage keeps them listening long enough for his message to spread. Realistically, would the campus preacher have the same numbers if he spoke calmly and politely? A one-on-30 confrontation is much more eye-catching, especially when students start to match his volume.
“I’m responding to him partly to educate him,” said a physics freshman who was very vocal in replying to the campus preacher. “It’s also kind of ragebait, honestly.”
Despite the good faith, it’s valuable to take a step back and evaluate whether “educating” someone who is “ragebaiting” actually accomplishes anything. Does engaging only create the polarization and attention he wants? It makes me wonder if there is a difference between the people who argue with the campus preacher and the campus preacher himself when they take on the same tone as one another.
“I want to know what his motive is and why he’s taking up the strategy he’s taking up,” said Jackson Mustamandy, a biological sciences freshman. “I feel like he’s doing the exact opposite of what somebody would do when trying to recruit someone. If you’re going around spreading hate speech and division and whatnot, I don’t think you’re going to convince many people.”
The campus preacher’s goal is not genuine conversation. He is making a very loud and hateful attempt at fearmongering college students into listening. His message depends on conflict, and every person who engages becomes part of the performance. Choosing not to engage does not mean agreeing with him; sometimes, it means refusing to give a provocative person the audience reaction they depend on.