Colleges are the intellectual hubs of America. College students have elected presidents, trained for the Civil Rights Movement and spawned the anti-Vietnam War movement, while their professors pushed at the frontiers of knowledge. These institutions have generally been the fastest, most effective, most efficient and most liberated marketplace for the ideas that could change the world.
So why are we, as students, putting limits on it? For once, I’m not writing about grounds use policies or protest rights that get handed to us (or not) from on high. This is about the limits we are placing on each other. As a left-leaning student who grew up in a deeply red Alabama town, I know how it feels to have your ideas figuratively (and possibly literally) body checked into the boards, which is why it hurts my heart to see this trend often happen at the University from both ends of the ideological spectrum.
On many, if not most, American campuses today, the “social justice” movement is a popular line of thought among students, including this columnist. The movement aims to eradicate sexism, racism, ableism, trans and homophobia and classism, which are all worthy and relevant goals. It meets its counter force in many socially conservative trends on campus, some of whose students have created ideological silos so large and broad that they can avoid ever encountering opposing views. The purveyance and protection of these conflicting ideologies often leads both sides to regulate and limit the marketplace of ideas.
By labeling fellow students with deeply hurtful monikers such as racist or a race-baiter for their own young and malleable set of ideals and by presuming that all students’ views should be held to the standard of what we believe or purport to know, politically active students have lately had a chilling effect on their campus’ speech. American students have forced the cancelation of commencement speakers, scheduled competing events to drown out opposing speech, hosted “panel forums” where all panelists held close to identical views and created ideological ivory towers to stay above the enlightening engagement.
We are not called to police each other’s speech. Rather, all members of the UA community have a duty to engage with each other in healthy, productive and sometimes spirited discussion. These discussions develop critical thinking, diverse perspectives and rhetorical analysis skills that are part and parcel with The University of Alabama’s mission to develop better citizens.
Instead of attempting to drown each other out, we should look for opportunities to build bridges of empathy and understanding of each other’s backgrounds in order to possibly gently persuade or inform each other’s beliefs. As tiring as it may be, students with political leanings of all stripes must compete equally and fairly in the marketplace of ideas, which includes allowing unpopular ideas to compete and possibly to die out naturally. If we wish to persuade others, we must be educators and friends, not enemies. We must make spaces safe for all viewpoints and participants and then vigorously debate the validity of our causes on even footing.
I do not believe the lines are so simple between racially enlightened and racist, feminist and misogynist, LGBT ally and homophobe. We are fallible humans from Alabama, New York, California and Texas with inconsistent and evolving belief systems colored by our own life experiences, so despite our differences and our university’s checkered history, we must engage and not police.
Leigh Terry is a junior majoring in economics. Her column runs weekly.
