Protest posters—also known as daejabos—once symbolized democratic discourse in university communities. Handwritten sentences on sheets of paper revealed contemporary social issues and sparked public debate. Even in today’s digital age, protest posters have not vanished into history. Their continued presence proves that the voice of university students still matters.

However, a recent dispute between the Student Minority Rights Committee—Ullim—and the College Student Association of the College of Politics and Economics—The Naeun—has distorted the meaning of campus democracy. Ullim criticized The Naeun for hosting a guest lecture featuring presidential candidate Lee Jun-seok with a poster titled “Does Lee Jun-seok Deserve to Speak at KHU?” The core of the criticism was that Lee has leveraged hate as a political strategy. This can be understood as an attempt by Ullim to advocate for a minority-friendly campus climate in line with their organizational purpose.

In response, The Naeun explained that it had originally intended to invite presidential candidates from all major parties, but Lee was the only one available. They emphasized that the lecture was not politically motivated, but rather aimed at broadening public discourse on campus. They also expressed their concern over being framed as a group promoting hate. Although inviting only one candidate might give the impression of partiality, the effort to provide students with diverse political perspectives should not be dismissed outright.

Both sides had reasons: one tried to protect minority rights, the other wanted to promote diverse views on the presidential election. But the real concern arises when such debates move beyond legitimate critique and begin to challenge the fundamental validity or existence of the other group. Is it democratic to question a group’s legitimacy over unrelated issues or past actions, just because it has different opinions? In such cases, it is more constructive to refute the opposing argument itself, rather than attacking its speaker. When disagreement turns into denial, free speech is no longer safe.

More troubling is the fact that the president of The Naeun, who initially raised concerns about Ullim, did not attend the public hearing due to personal reasons. This raises questions about whether there was a genuine willingness to engage in dialogue. A public hearing is not something to take lightly—it is a space for honest and serious discussion. Not showing up weakens its purpose and makes it harder for students to trust the process.

Protest posters and public hearings were once the symbols of student-led democracy. But they are now in danger of becoming tools for condemnation, rather than critique. A discussion that began with the question, “Does this person deserve to speak?” has shifted to, “Does this group deserve to exist?” At this point, we must ask: Is the university still a space where students can speak freely? In an environment where disagreement leads to erasure, who will dare to say something new?

For protest posters to serve once again as tools for democratic discourse, they must return to their role as question marks, not weapons. The point is not to stop the fight, but to change how it is fought.