The election results were no surprise. Though I endorsed Coresa Nancy Hogan, Grant Cochran seemingly has the qualifications and the intentions to bring about positive change on campus.
Though the desire for positive, progressive change is certainly not a desire held by every member of the student body, it seems to be the desire of a majority of students. This desire is hard to quantify, but through everything from Hogan’s grassroots movement and SGA initiatives to dining-hall gossip and Facebook statuses, it’s easy to intuit. Though some may be quick to label Cochran’s campaign bullet-points on campus unity as insincere or purely political, the very fact that he had to include them in his campaign is indicative of the student body’s attitude toward change and unity.
As we move forward, we must be cognizant of two subtle, yet powerful, barriers that may stand in the way of achieving progressive change, regardless of what your individual opinions are as to what that change should look like.
First, we need to avoid ambiguity. This is not to say we need to be ridiculously goal-oriented, nor is it to say we need to have all our answers immediately, but we do need to have some idea of what we want this change to look like. Many of us have expressed the desire for change in the form of “campus unity,” but we’ve been largely unable to describe what this “campus unity” will look like, other than the proverbial “greek guy eating with an independent guy in the dining hall.” I see that every day.
Which areas should we be unified in and in which areas should we appreciate the beauty of diversity? Are unity and diversity mutually exclusive or are they, in some ways, similar? To what extent should we regulate change? Does the SGA currently have the power to accomplish this change or do new committees need to be created? What are tangible signs or indicators of progress?
These are the types of thoughtful questions we need to be asking. Merely spouting off insults about how far behind we are and “sticking it to the man” might feel good, but ultimately gets us nowhere. I have a hard time getting excited about some flowery ideal, but I can get excited about a tangible program that expresses that ideal.
Granted, it is understood when proposing flowery ideals that such ideals will eventually evolve into practical programs, but there is a time for noise and a time for direction. An initial cacophonous uproar is necessary to help people recognize the yearnings of the campus, but we are past that. Let’s start accompanying the word “change” with the words “I suggest.”
Secondly, we need to be incredibly careful to avoid labels. It is completely irrelevant whether or not you feel a particular label is an accurate representation or a gross stereotype. Labels are counterproductive.
Any sentence describing “Machine-backed Grant Cochran” can be just as effectively written as “Grant Cochran.” The second we label Cochran as “Machine-backed,” we have no choice but to diagnose any positive or unifying change he produces as faux or a scam. Similarly, let’s avoid labeling fervent independent students as “liberal.” The second we do this, we have no choice but to classify any activism on their part as merely part of their culture, rather than legitimate efforts to produce positive change.
Refusing to label is not synonymous with keeping an issue in the dark. Martin Luther King Jr. also faced a complex and well-organized Southern political machine, yet he concentrated his efforts on advancing his own movement for change, rather than spewing labels at this machine. Dr. King understood how to be effective in promoting change. Is our goal to express our frustration or to actually realize change?
Similarly, refusing to label a complex political machine or its members as such is not synonymous with stroking its ego, as has been suggested in the comments of previous CW articles. This idea assumes that stroking an ego and abrasively labeling a group are our only options. There are many other (much better) options, however, that express a willingness to work with one another, without embodying one of the two negative extremes.
So, once we more clearly define what type of change we want to see, let’s buckle down and do what’s strategic, rather than what releases our anger. We need to be putting more time and emotional energy into finding solutions and less time and emotional energy into exposing problems. The problems are already exposed, and they will be further exposed by our positive actions.
By more clearly defining our goals and by forgoing labels in the process, we will show the campus and the community around us that we are legitimately interested in change.
Ben Friedman is a sophomore majoring in social entrepreneurship. His column runs on Fridays.
