Civil discourse is a term that’s been thrown around in Student Senate and the greater community quite a bit lately, and the overwhelming conclusion I have heard from people is that Gustavus’s concept of civil discourse is skewed to the extreme, and, quite frankly, sucks worse than Childress’s ability to challenge a play.
To offer insight, civil discourse in the vaguest terms is a conversation meant to improve understanding. What’s disheartening to me is how often the dialogue at Gustavus about political issues, whether national, local or campus scale, is aimed at preserving the views people already have, not an improved understanding of an issue. Conversation on our otherwise superb campus is based more on knee-jerk reactions and emotions than anything else. While I expect this sort of thing in U.S. politics, where logic takes a back seat to appeals to fear, liberty and gut reactions, the pattern showing up at Gustavus hinders us from achieving a more complete sense of the Gustavus experience.
In every aspect of life here at Gustavus, the goal is to reach toward a greater understanding of life and the world around us. Unfortunately, the discourse on campus runs completely contrary to that idea. Nearly every “incident” on campus plays out in the same way: one side is offended and vocalizes how offended they are. The other is offended by the first “attacking” them, and both proceed to claim victimization. This process continues until one side concedes, or the whole thing blows over-when everyone finally gets tired of hearing about it.
How often a “side” in the conversation is “victimized” is debatable and the topic for another column—the point is that none of this process reflects the intelligent conversation that should happen in a community like ours.
The adage “Don’t let your classes get in the way of your education,” is a reflection of all the opportunities for learning during our four years at Gustavus other than in the classroom. There is more to be learned in simply talking to others about a different perspective and viewpoint than most people take advantage of on campus.
As a self-professed Democrat and barely practicing, if at all, Christian, I can say that one of the best conversations I’ve had this year was with a couple of Christian friends after “The Rock” incident. There was little to no agreement at any point during our discussion, but the point wasn’t agreement—the goal was understanding. Finding understanding is what we should seek to do.
I have to make one thing clear: the purpose of civil discourse is not to be liked or to be agreed with. This is, I think, where Gustavus’s fear of rational conversation comes from, a misunderstanding of its purpose. As long as people are afraid of being disliked for an opinion, they will not share it, and no understanding will be found. As long as people are hated for their opinions, people will be afraid of sharing their opinions. If any serious discourse is to exist at Gustavus, we must accept two things. First, that not everyone will like an idea. Second, that it is possible to absolutely abhor an idea but still respect its source.
Accordingly, my purpose for sharing opinions through this column is not to be liked. I accept that many times people will disagree with my views on a subject. Perhaps this will even cause them to dislike me personally, which I can only accept with the same disheartened cynicism that I have with all other discourse at Gustavus. But perhaps, by some luck, (although in my experience there’s no such thing) this column will spark discussion and a truer form of conversation at Gustavus.