Discourse is key to my understanding of liberal arts. I am of the opinion that, in order to properly form our own system of beliefs, we must hear from every side of the issue at hand. Furthermore, once reached, beliefs are not infallible, and someone who truly cares about their issue will always be open to the potential that they are wrong. At Wesleyan, where we feel empowered to use what we learn to make tangible change in the world we live in, this notion of discourse ought to be fundamental.
I was greatly disappointed, therefore, to see what passed as discourse during last week’s arguments regarding the “Activism 102”Middle Eastern activism conference. As I’m wearily growing accustomed to Wespeaks and Wesleyan debate in general, the two sides either shouted past each other or decided that they were above responding at all. In the aftermath, we have no greater understanding whatsoever between these groups on campus. Ultimately, I’m coming down on the pro-conference side of this issue, but I feel there was little attempt at discourse.
In their Wespeak (Feb. 6) Students for a Free Palestine (SFP) acknowledged that they were aware of the concerns held by various groups and individuals on campus. Rather than address these concerns, or make the very legitimate case that this is a conference, not a workshop in bomb-making, SFP decided that the best course of action would be to write off concerns as “reactionary” and “wholly unworthy of response.”
If, in fact, the purpose of the conference was to further a “spirit of education,” then deeming something “wholly unworthy of response” strikes me as a decidedly odd way to go about that purpose. SFP was very obviously not open to discourse regarding the issue, and in my eyes, this is very problematic.
The other side of the debate, however, had no more respect for discourse, though they too claimed to be working towards the nurturance of an educational environment. Kol Israel, also in a Wespeak (Feb. 6), cited fears that the event would “promote hatred, ignorance, and anti-Semitism on a campus that greatly values tolerance and equality.”
If we do value tolerance and equality so highly, then why is Kol Israel worried that a conference lasting one day would immediately turn that around? I, for one, do not take kindly to the implication that my beliefs in tolerance and equality are so poorly founded that I need to be sheltered from any speech that may (or may not) challenge them. Kol Israel warns of the misinformation and half-truths that the conference will throw at attendees, but does not, in the spirit of true discourse, offer us its understanding of the truth-it merely attacks the notion of the truth that it attributes to the conference. It does offer us facts on the organizations themselves (though it should be noted that the websites they give are hardly objective), but they make a blanket statement about the information to be provided at the conference, calling it all “misinformation”.
Professor Vera Schwarcz, in her own Wespeak (Feb. 6), laments the “undercurrent of anti-intellectualism” that she notices here at Wesleyan. “Solid, tough-minded learning,” she continues, “is seen as an ‘elite’ somehow.” And although we come up supporting different sides of this argument, I’m inclined to agree with her, insofar as I see a disregard for discourse pervasive on this campus. Shouting matches have taken the place of real scholarship and real activism. Again, hindsight is 20-20, but the conference on Saturday does not seem to have lead to widespread campus anti-Semitism. The conference, or at least the few parts of it that I saw, did not teach people how to fire weaponry, plant bombs, or conduct terrorist activities. The wariness shown by pro-Israel groups towards the organizing groups was indeed warranted, but the proper response was the discursive one-the organization of a counter-teach-in, a similar conference with a pro-Israel bent, or a debate with SFP. Instead, both groups chose not to engage in a discussion of the issues, but rather to yell in the other group’s general direction.
I hope that in the months to come, during which there will certainly be more issues raised at Wesleyan, our community can be one that tries to reach common ground. To be progressive is to work towards a better world. And since none of us know exactly what that better world ought look like, we would do well to listen to each other a little more often.
Leave a Reply