Lula Burke & Torria Catrone, Editors-in-Chief—
Discussions on campus about the Israel-Hamas war have laid bare where we tend to fall flat as Denisonians: civil discourse.
The seeds for healthy discourse are all here on the Hill, but students seem to be reluctant to commit to nurturing them. As the editors of The Denisonian, we want to share our observations about the nature of disagreement on campus and offer insight as to how we can support our plurality.
When Connie Schultz found out students were publicly sharing their stances on the Israel-Palestine conflict, she took her opinion-writing class immediately to A-quad. Her students stood around the chalked messages. The appearance of a crowd drew the messages’ authors, spectators and others with strong opinions close by. Schultz facilitated a discussion between those who came forward to share, validating anger but prioritizing voices who were willing to engage calmly with the other side.
Schultz’ students expressed that this was the first time they had seen discourse like this happen on campus. We don’t often take the time to gather, sit, and listen. We’re all busy, and it’s exponentially easier to lob one-line takes at each other than meaningfully engage.
Like the products of the digital age that we are, we often run to social media first in the face of controversy. We search for “bumper sticker” versions of complicated issues that can be posted in an Instagram story. We press “like” on comments we agree with and posts that confirm our position. Any of our engagement with opposition is short-lived – most likely as a heated exchange in the DMs. We reduce people and organizations down to a single sentence, all the better to wrap our heads around and more easily identify those on “our side.”
In today’s intensely polarized and decreasingly democratic America, we cannot continue to behave this way. It could cost us more than we know.
We have the privilege of practicing disagreement here at Denison, and every single one of us could use the exercise. Students need to enter into discourse without a winning strategy; enter instead with open ears and a mind for facts. We’re surrounded by experts, and we should be listening to them. Our lateral engagement with students is important, but we have to remember that in our limited understanding we can only have limited conversations.
Successful discourse requires expertise – and there’s virtually nowhere more rife with knowledge than a college campus.
The Denisonian urges students interested in topics such as the Israel-Palestine conflict to conduct thorough research, learn to listen, and make time to discuss with those who think differently. “Discerning moral agents” are not formed in an echo chamber. Having difficult and uncomfortable discussions in a constructive manner is one of the most important goals of a university education.
The Denisonian also notes that there are several campus platforms for having these sorts of conversations – roundtable events, organizational learning opportunities, and facilitated discussion – and that students should not take these privileges for granted. The attendance at these events can be thin, which is an unbelievable failure on our end as students.
If you only express that you care digitally, you are not caring fully.
Finally, it is our job to amplify the voices of the student population, and we do our best to be an unbiased publication that represents all corners of campus. That said, we cannot tell your stories if you don’t engage with us. Some organizations are represented more heavily in the paper simply because they are more proactive about sending us material and penning op-eds.
If you have opinions or perspectives that you think would be valuable to the student population, send us an email at [email protected]. Student newspapers have changed national laws, uprooted university and federal officials, and set multiple precedents for free speech. Instagram stories do not hold the same weight.
Times have changed, and it is more critical now than ever to engage with your student newspaper.