Neuro-linguistic programming is a multi-disciplinary approach to helping individuals realize their potential excellence through mental exercises. NLP’s main presupposition is, “There is no such thing as failure, only feedback.”

I read a book on NLP last year and became interested in the theories of the relationship between cognition and behavior. The exercises were surprisingly not as phony as the typical New York Times bestselling self-help books, but they followed a similar theme. Change your mindset, change your behavior and become successful. It felt too easy, much too easy.

The only feedback I received on Valentine’s Day were the visuals of “The Notebook,” the sounds of Maroon 5 and the taste of pink heart-shaped cookies that I baked, alone. Yes, I may have gotten a little misty during the rainy kissing scene.

Considering I spent last Valentine’s Day doing the same thing, the book probably failed to own up to its $11 price tag and lofty promises – relationship-wise, at least. It certainly helped build up my optimism enough to cushion the blow of reality, though.

That optimism carries over to this campus. I often hate that I love UA enough to believe in the possibility of significant progress in bridging the divide between students with other students and students with the administration. I hate it because when I read and hear students saying that this is not the time for division, arguing or change, I boil with anger.

The fear of those agitated reactions insults the civility of our student body. Does anyone trust that we, as UA students, can conduct honest discourse? There is a difference between those who shout and those who discuss, and if we cannot trust our students to differentiate the two, then we have failed as a university to enroll capable students.

We always publicly call for civic engagement, but when a crucial opportunity arises—one that is more important than buying alcohol on Sunday — we sweep it under the rug. Our rug will not be able to hide everything forever; pretty soon, we will not care that it may be carefully vacuumed on top.

Last Wednesday, four student leaders wrote a column titled “Tensions must not divide”. In it, they defended the past progress of campus and ironically stated, “We cannot be content with superficial unity.”

On Monday, Tray Smith argued that our campus divisions are shared nationwide and stated, “As we work to build a campus that is more equal and just, we should remember that our campus today is more equal and just than it has ever been.”

All five attempted to temper the campus mood by turning to the past for reassurance. We should build off what we do and have done, but the future is what is important. The campus division is not independent versus greek; it is those who care about the University’s future versus those who defend its past.

We still have a chance to use the impetus of this month’s events to drive the campus discussion. No one can and should end it. As Ryan Gosling tearfully exclaims in the movie’s iconic scene, “It wasn’t over. It still isn’t over.”

Prove those who worry about the implications of discussion wrong. Refuse to be a hatemonger and stereotyper. The voices of rationality might not speak the loudest, but they will be the most effective.

The only true failure is if we do not use this time to elicit feedback from students. I will keep pumping out my NLP-induced optimism, even though I may spend holidays alone watching romance movies.

Wesley Vaughn is a junior majoring in public relations and political science. His column runs on Wednesdays.