Author: Cordelia Kenney
If there is any takeaway lesson from October’s federal shutdown, it is that flatly rejecting a non-comforming opinion, value or strategic approach stalls
progress in the most basic way. Closing off communication channels and
refusing to thoughtfully engage with others rejects the basic building blocks for enacting change. In the same way, openness and civility prove to be a recurring problem in the dialogue concerning social justice at Occidental. The disconcerting tendency to anonymously complain online and jump to accusations also thwarts productive discourse. Students at Occidental could learn a thing or two about civility, humility and cooperation before critiquing the administration on “Oxy Confessions” or their nation’s political leaders.
Though they are attending a small liberal arts college that emphasizes intersectionality and diversity, students at Occidental take for granted that their peers will almost always adopt a liberal viewpoint on any given issue. Assuming that everyone is operating within the same frame of reference has obvious flaws. If people infer that everyone around them is liberal, heterosexual or affluent or any other identity, then they become too accustomed to agreement and too critical of alternative understandings of racism, sexism or existence in general.
It is ironic that the same kind of hostility to difference, ignorance of the basic facts and condescension characteristic of Republicans in Washington exist within such a liberal institution as Occidental. The value of this analogy is not to belittle Tea Party Republicans as uncultured religious zealots, but instead to critique their approach to understanding difference. The two could not be further apart in values, yet both crowds vilify individuals or groups that diverge from each one’s respective worldview. The fundamental problem with conversations about social justice on campus is a pervasive tendency to hash out discussions online anonymously and with a preconceived, rigid notion of justice already in mind.
A good example of this hypersensitivity and its attendant emotionally charged dialogue is any and all conversations about gender and sexuality on campus. The Oxy Sexual Assault Coalition (OSAC) recently posted on its Facebook page a slide of a Project S.A.F.E. presentation about nonverbal consent, framing the listed suggestions from the presentation as vaguely accepting of abusive behavior. A Project S.A.F.E. Program Assistant challenged this accusation, taken out of context as it was and suggested that members of OSAC directly contact her to clear up the confusion. It is unfortunate that the anonymous OSAC representative maintained the assumption that Project S.A.F.E., as an outpost of the college’s administration, is inextricably linked to and implicated in the administration’s poor policies on sexual assault, and therefore has no business telling students how to interpret body language in a sexual encounter. Rather than earnestly trying to reach a point of understanding regarding the intentions of the slide, an anonymous voice of OSAC embodied the hostile attitude characteristic of conversations about social justice issues.
Both groups want the same thing, yet OSAC seems intent on noncooperation rather than collaboration. It goes without saying that sexual assault is a sensitive topic and individuals will have strong opinions. Being passionate is invaluable for upending cultural norms which reinforce negative behavior. Translating that emotional charge into hostility and reactivity, however, precludes effective change because is stops conversations from happening in the first place. When people cannot freely challenge assumptions about sexuality or be challenged about their own assumptions, students are not able to develop and deepen their intellectual understanding of, for example, why sexual assault is wrong.
The point of this example is not to criticize or demean OSAC’s valuable efforts or to frame the group as antithetical to Project S.A.F.E. Instead, it should draw attention to how counterproductive it is to assume intentions rather than critically and civilly engage with others. This example also illustrates how problematic it is to voice discontent online behind an anonymous, faceless organization. Granted, social media defines the 21st century, but that does not excuse students from actually engaging in constructive debate — in person — with their interlocutors.
“Oxy Confessions” is also a prime example of students’ fear to publicly stand behind their convictions. After the Toga dance, multiple posts on the site raised poignant concerns and only occasionally inflammatory points about the administration’s reaction to the six hospital transports. Similarly, numerous students have been voicing their opinions about race at Occidental. It is easy to ignore a nameless group or an anonymous post; it is much more difficult to deny and deprecate the thoughts and opinions of a human being with a name and a face.
Along with the lack of face-to-face interaction is a lack of introspection. If students do not take the time to investigate and discern where their own opinions come from, they will continue to misrepresent or misinterpret the motivations of others and ultimately devalue their opinions. Perhaps if students attached their names to their sentiments and voiced them in some kind of non-virtual forum, a more fruitful and more consequential discussion about binge drinking, and even race, would transpire.
Too often students at Occidental refuse to listen to and genuinely understand those who deviate from their understanding of how things ought to be. Only when students learn to more fully delve into the issues in this manner will they enact positive change. Students should not adopt the obstinate, accusatory and condescending attitude emblematic of many American politicians and instead strive for understanding, flexibility and openness to criticism.
Cordelia Kenney is a senior history major. She can be reached at CKenney@oxy.edu or @WklyCKenney.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
