thinkin’ ’bout the week

Poster drama seems to be in full-swing still. The past week has been packed with forums and gatherings to discuss and reflect upon the racially-provocative posters a student posted. There was a wonderfully-reported article in the PioLog today that helped illuminate the motivation behind (and reaction to) the whole thing.

I’ve seen a lot of musing in various circles, and I wanted to write down some thoughts I’ve had and heard before they escape from my mind….

Seeing this play out reminded me very much of “Willamette Week” scandal of early 2008, which, to paraphrase an overly complex, emotionally-charged situation, revolved around the publication of a front-page article in the Willamette Week.  Many members of the student body felt the need to take sides in the issue (like ya’ do, apparently) and lo and behold, anonymous “critiques” in the form of angry Facebook groups and seriously offensive flyers plagued the campus (until we found something else to gossip about).  I don’t bring this up to re-hash the past, but I find it really, really intriguing that in my four years on this campus, this week’s poster debacle is (at least) the second time I can recall a high-profile instance of students choosing to passively hurl anonymous, simplistic attacks rather than actually engage in a dialogue with someone who has the power to create a positive change.  Perhaps this sort of thing happens on any campus, and I’m just unaware because I don’t go to any college but this one.  In the off chance that L&C *is* unique in this respect, I have no choice but to wonder why.  I know how much the administration cares about sensitivity, diversity, and understanding, and can’t imagine how it could be held responsible.  I can only assume the student body values these concepts as well, given the myriad student groups and events devoted to addressing and discussing various issues of race, sexuality, religion, politics, and other points of social contention.  I doubt it’s faculty-related… the modus operandi of these posters’ passive-aggressive flailing for attention doesn’t seem to mesh with the extent to which our (or at least my) professors emphasize the critical importance of scholarly discourse, the scientific method, and preserving integrity.

We have so many people (professional or otherwise) and channels within this institution to constructively address grievances, it is confusing–to say the least–why we as a student body so frequently fail to communicate productively.  It seems to me that, on paper, we should be more than equipped to handle disagreements (and, what in this most recent case was a misunderstanding) without defaulting to proliferating MS-Paint-facilitated hodgepodges of the most incendiary phrases and imagery the first page of a Google search will provide.

The PioLog article did cause me to consider one other angle: perhaps we are more inclined to spin around in circles yelling because it’s much easier than actually trying to solve a problem (though I don’t know why this would make LC unique in any way).  This is, I guess, common sense, but I’d hope we could have moved beyond that technique of conflict resolution.  Given an especially illuminating quotation from the article, I’m not so sure that all of us have:

The anonymous student said he created the posters to “highlight the history of blackface,” which he said was parallel to the Maori issue. “I didn’t really want to be involved in the conversation, I just wanted people to think about it.”

Read as much into that as you will (and I’m always willing to extend the benefit of the doubt when it comes to direct quotation), but I think it illustrates exactly the problem.  It’s much easier to catalyze discussion than it is to actually participate, and for some reason we have romanticized the former rather than the latter.  The events of this week should drive home for us conceptually that if even one person loudly expresses him/herself without making an effort to consider others’ ideas and criticisms in return, we end up with a campus-wide furor (rightfully) devoted to discussing issues that were not at the heart of (or even related to) the original point of contention (not to mention coping with the consequential feelings of anger, endangerment, and/or frustration that result).  Nobody wants that.  At least that’s what I’d like to think.

Anyway, I’m going to sleep now.