<p>One of the interesting dynamics that I’ve noticed is the tension between unity and diversity. I guess this is being reconciled as “let’s stand united for diversity” – but the conflict doesn’t disappear by saying that. In the end, many (I don’t know HOW many, but it seems to be TOO many) people have their own idea of what kinds of diversity matter and which kinds can take a back seat. And that’s fine. We’re all doing this, more or less. It’s just that when we do that and take positions as though our filter is the one everyone else should be united with, that sort of alpha-posturing is at odds with the idea of being united. That sort of righteousness actually creates barriers when people should be building bridges.</p>
<p>I see this with positions that I’m inclined to agree with…advocated by people who get overly aggressive about shoving that view down and making others bend to it. I agree with the substance of the commentary and I still feel put off by the approach. I’d like to see more listening – the unappreciated half of “discussion” that many people assume is the responsibility for the other people in the room. I even understand the idea that people want to convey their passion for their position. That’s still no excuse for not listening to the other views. When someone is so passionate that they won’t hear someone else out before staking their ground, it’s difficult to respect where that person is coming from because it looks and sounds like they arrived at their position by putting on blinders and ear plugs.</p>
<p>This is how allies alienate each other…not just at Oberlin but all over. And it’s a shame. You get people who are very united on the substance actively working to differentiate themselves…to the point where they prefer to focus on the differences. It just takes a small number of toxic people to build wedges where bridges are needed. And tense moments, like the ones going on at Oberlin, are like a dog whistle to these people. The task of the majority of people is to not let the toxic, divisive people control the conversation or drive the discussion.</p>
<p>If someone says something that might be worth taking offense to, it might be better to hear them out and finding where there’s common ground (if any) before carpet-bombing. Why kill off your allies? That just makes your real enemies stronger, more threatening, more enabled, and satisfied that they’ve plotted the correct course. I look at some of the divisions created at Oberlin right now and imagine the back-slapping going on among the people who are directly responsible…and that makes me go a little bit berserk because those are the people who I have REAL issues with and want to give a piece of my mind.</p>