Every year, the Day of Silence leaves me with an eerie and disturbed feeling. I have never been able to pinpoint whether I feel disturbed in a good or bad way or whether I believe the Day of Silence is an effective measure. As of the recent Day of Silence, however, it has become clear to me that this day doesn’t accomplish nearly as much as we think it does.

For many participants, the Day of Silence functions as an embargo on the voice, but it does not disqualify other forms of communication. Many take advantage of this, mouthing words, writing messages, typing, etc. The theoretical implication is chilling—to sidestep the Day of Silence with nonverbal communication depicts societal intolerance as manageable and allowable. Any form of communication implies that even if LGBTQ teens are pressured to not physically speak, there are other forms of communication that suffice.

It is my understanding that one objective of the Day of Silence is to shed light on the silence in which many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer, also known as LGBTQ, teens suffer. In other words, our intolerant society pressures LGBTQ teens into not revealing their sexuality for fear of being ostracized. This is certainly true, evident by numerous bullying-induced suicides. Yet the Day of Silence, at least perceptually, has very little impact on this situation at GBN. The reason is not because the Day of Silence is ideologically flawed, but rather its execution lacks severity.

This is not the message we should be sending.

Tolerance and expression should not be selective—they should be universal and unconditional. Any inability to communicate, regardless of the method, is an attack on self-expression. The Day of Silence needs to embody the totality of the silencing effect rather than frame the voice as the culprit. If it is true that intolerance is dehumanizing, participants need to show this dehumanization in whole. To protest by prohibiting one form of communication, but use other forms of communication, is to still represent expression as accessible. Maximal awareness cannot be achieved if the notion of silence is protested in an incomplete manner.

The Day of Silence does not need to be abolished or condemned. It needs to be revised for the sake of sincerity. Doing so will create a truly effective model for protesting intolerance.