One of those strange instances of irony leads me to conclude this semester’s blog in the same manner it began: Miley Cyrus (sorry, Mitch, but Ke$ha will not be making an appearance in my blog).

Our class this week was an open dialogue with President Erickson, in which we discussed the pros and cons of HONOR 297H. Skimming through my peers’ blogs before writing this, I am happy to see that many of them feel they have had a positive experience with the course. But it was also refreshing to have an open forum in our class to discuss improvements we think might benefit future students – more effective use of blogs, better class discussion format, some brief assigned readings, etc. What made our discussion even more rewarding was President Erickson’s response to the last suggestion: something to the effect, I think a few short assigned readings from which the class can build may benefit the course.

A few short assigned readings from which the class can build may benefit the course. It was that easy. The president was neither dismissive nor defensive, but he recognized my classmates’ suggestion and indicated that, in the future, the course instructors may consider it. It was as simple as that.

So where does Miley Cyrus tie into this? Today, I was browsing through Huffington Post articles and came across this: “Miley Cyrus Supports Free The Nipple Campaign.” Oh no, I thought to myself, what is she getting herself into this time? However, as I read the short accompanying article, I was shocked. Miley was able to articulate what I have been unable to convey effectively to friends, professors, and classmates all semester.

“America is just so weird in what they think is right and wrong. Like, I was watching ‘Breaking Bad’ the other day, and they were cooking meth. I could literally cook meth because of that show… And then they bleeped out the word ‘f–k.’… It’s like when they bleeped ‘molly’ at the VMAs. Look what I’m doing up here right now, and you’re going to bleep out ‘molly’?”

In a rather riveting blog post a few weeks ago, my friend and fellow PLA student Coral Flanagan wrote, “I think that we draw an arbitrary distinction between different types of aesthetic appeals… On some level, violence is always violence, nudity is always nudity, sex is always sex, and I don’t agree that high-brow culture changes that; the context matters, but so does the actual material being presented.”

The distinctions we make, the values we assign, what we find shocking, what we censor, in short – these are all arbitrary. That is what I have learned this semester. Furthermore, because these are arbitrary, we should always be questioning them—questioning our authorities, our values, and even ourselves. That is not to say I do not believe in right and wrong, because I do. But I also believe that social change is accelerating in modern society faster than ever, and I do not want to look over my shoulder and see myself on the wrong side of history. It is the people who see wrongs—Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi—and who are not afraid to reject these wrongs, who change the world.

After I searched for history on the Free the Nipple Campaign, I scrolled down to see what I at first thought was a rather shocking freeze. A woman stands, breasts bared, nipples piercing, raising her hands to the sky. After watching the video, I thought about it again. Why was this shocking to me? I have seen nipples before; I have them.

Arbitrary shock value deceptively permeates the depths of American culture. We watch criminals get their brains blown out on Law and Order, but it is “fake,” so we do not think twice. But like Coral wrote, on some level, violence is always violence. These television shows and movies inure us to murder, to violence, to human life. But we are shocked when Miley Cyrus walks onstage in a skin-colored bra and panties, or when women walk topless around New York City?

Why are we ashamed of our nudity? Why can’t nudity be equally empowering for women and men?

I want to close with a statement from Sky Ferreira, a singer-songwriter who was the subject of media controversy after appearing topless on the cover of her 2013 album, Night Time, My Time:

“Everyone’s trying to say that we’re trying to make ourselves objects. But really, everyone else is making it more like that — sensationalizing sex and reading into things… There’s nothing about that photo that’s pornographic. We came on this earth nude.”

Are these women objectifying themselves, or are we objectifying them? Does nudity automatically equate to sex?

We are shocked when we see a nipple, but rape is rampant in the Congo. We bleep out assh***, but Pakistani women are prohibited from reading books at all. We worry more about football games than the starving Filipino men, women, and children displaced by natural disaster.

To borrow another phrase from Coral, what is more utterly puritanical, more numbingly aesthetic: what we censor, or the censorship itself, and to what it numbs us?

Whatever it is—absurd social standards, international inequality, or even simple faulty class procedures—change comes from voices, and authorities will listen, if for no other reason than they eventually will have no choice (though President Erickson was more than open-minded).

And so I conclude 2013 shouting with my arms held high: FREE THE NIPPLE