See the photos

The [sign] display made Ronald Keene, a sophomore, re-think his pro-choice position. ‘This is mind-blowing,’ Keene said, staring in amazement at the display. ‘It looks like a baby. I’ve never seen abortion . . . . I think it’s time to reconsider how I think.’

The signs also helped draw hundreds of students to the four formal presentations (including one debate) which I gave during the week. Andre Wilson, an African American doctoral candidate in materials science and engineering, sent us an e-mail in which he generously described one of those lectures as "by far the best pro-life presentation that I have ever seen." He also enthused that "The comparison of abortion to other forms of genocide (slavery and the Holocaust) is brilliant. The comparisons are accurate and startling."

The University administration was remarkably open-minded about our presence. Referring to GAP, James Stewart, Vice Provost for Educational Equity, affirmed the Institution’s "commit-ment to allow debate and free speech about competing ideas" in the school paper. In that same spirit, Penn State’s campus police, despite some initial apprehension, were very cordial toward us throughout the week. Though careful to avoid "taking sides," several officers privately thanked us for coming and one said he believed students needed to see these pictures. Another told us he was "thoroughly impressed" by the way our staff interacted with the students.

Unfortunately, not everyone exhibited the same tolerance for truth that offends. On Tuesday evening we displayed the panels in front of the campus auditorium in which Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel was delivering a lecture to thousands of students and faculty. When asked about our signs, Mr. Wiesel told the press, "I feel that its wrong. Once you start comparing, everyone loses." What Mr. Wiesel failed to grasp is that unborn children are "losing" precisely because we haven’t been "comparing" their slaughter to more widely recognized forms of genocide.

We were there to applaud Mr. Wiesel’s opposition to some genocide, but also to invite him to join us in opposing all genocide. Ironically, the current issue (April, 1998) of the Central Christian Observer (published by Central Christian Church, Wichita, KS), features an article - written by a contemporary of Mr. Wiesel’s who does, in fact, compare the Holocaust to abortion. She refers to her upbringing under Hitler and the extermination of the brothers and sisters of her Jewish mother. She concludes that ". . . in Nazi Germany and in America today, millions of innocent human lives are taken by the arbitrary but legalized acts of those who have the power to do so."

A similar sentiment was recently expressed by Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Yehuda Levin in Brooklyn, New York, who says that:

Each form of genocide, whether Holocaust, lynching, abortion, etc., differs from all the others in the identities, motives and methods of its perpetrators. But each form of genocide is identical to all the others in the systematic slaughter, as state sanctioned "choice," of innocent, defenseless victims, each in denial of their own "personhood."

But Tuvia Abramson, director of Hillel, The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life at Penn State had a different point of view, which he petulantly expressed by attempting to censor our point of view. As the school newspaper reported, he, along with 20 other members of the University’s Jewish community "covered the photos with his jacket while standing in front of the images. "‘This is an unacceptable use of their political agenda to promote their ideology’ Abramson said. "‘It takes a sick mind to use the Holocaust for one’s agenda.’"

I doubt, however, that Mr. Abramson thinks it was "sick" for Steven Speilberg to use the Holocaust for his agenda (reducing the odds of future Jewish exterminations) by producing the movie Schindler’s List? "His" agenda ("never again") is also part of "our" agenda ("respect all life"). We only wish that "our" agenda were part of "his." We also reject the provincial notion that the Holocaust is anyone’s private property. It’s images and the lessons we learn from them must be used by people of conscience everywhere.

Later in the week, another of many Jewish students indignantly declared that he was offended because he had lost relatives to Nazi genocide. I asked him whether he might also have lost relatives to abortion genocide? After a startled pause, he guessed that perhaps he had. Amazingly, there followed a thoughtful discussion.

Less thoughtfully, the president-elect of the student Black Caucus told campus news reporters that she was "offended" and denounced the display as "racist." This allegation was beyond bizarre since, at various times, 15 to 20 of the volunteers who helped us hold our signs were pro-life African Americans.

Not to be outdone, Kenneth Clarke, director of The Center for Ethics and Religious Affairs at the University also entered the fray. "It is comparing oppressive systems against an issue of choice" he suggested to the school paper. Dr. Clarke didn’t seem to understand that with genocide, everyone gets a "choice" but the victim.

All of this was quite predictable and the price which must be paid to reach the more objective segment of the university community. It is always easier for a people victimized by genocide to acknowledge their own pain than the pain of other victims -- and it is easier yet to acknowledge the genocidal guilt of others than the genocidal guilt that is our own. Said another way, genocide that is long ago and far away is safer to condemn than genocide that is here and now – especially genocide which most Americans are now committing or permitting. It was much less costly, for instance, for the International Red Cross and the Catholic Church to apologize, as they recently did, for their silence when the Holocaust was occurring than it would have been to have spoken out at the time. It was much less costly for Bill Clinton to go to Africa and speak out against slavery, as he recently did, than it was for Abraham Lincoln, who lost his life speaking out in his time.

Nevertheless, thousands of students were drawn to our signs during class changes each day and hundreds paused for 10 or 15 minutes of dialogue with our volunteers. The pictures, whose locations changed daily, forced these discussions to center on the incontrovertible visual evidence that abortion is an act of violence which kills a baby. Reactions ranged from thoughtful to angry. An April 2, 1998 Associated Press wire story described the scene: "Dozens of students crowded around Cunningham to debate the display and abortion. Others walked by covering their faces and scowling. Some stood thoughtfully off to the side." This highly visual generation was beginning to think of abortion in terms of a child instead of a choice.

One student informed us that her philosophy professor canceled his lecture to permit a discussion of the sign project. Another student reported that her American studies professor did the same. A sociology professor brought his classes out to observe student reaction to the signs. For nearly a week the project was featured again and again on the front page of the campus newspaper (The Daily Collegian) and two weeks after the signs were first displayed, the editorial page was still filled with letters discussing issues related to the displays. Much the same thing happened with the local newspaper (The Centre Daily Times). Coverage of this epic event can be accessed by visiting the respective web sites of the two news organizations at http://www.collegian.psu.edu/ and http://www.centredaily.com.

CBR was on campus at the invitation of a coalition of student groups which included the Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ, Alliance Christian Fellowship, Reformed University Fellowship, Christians in Action, Asian-American Christian Fellowship, New Life Christian Fellowship, Chi Alpha, International Christian Fellowship and Students for Life. And the sponsorship of these organizations helped create innumerable opportunities for Christian ministry.