Opposite sides of issue need to learn respect
By Adam Holmberg
IV Leader Staff Columnist
NEW PERSPECTIVES column, May 6, 2004
In academia, the most popular method of change is through debate, made possible through the concept known as academic freedom – a person cannot be held personally or professionally accountable for their opinions, theories and positions on issues as long as those opinions do not cause harm to others. It is understood that only through the free exchange of ideas can real, viable solutions to problems be found.
Unfortunately, there are movements in academia that oppose learned debate. These movements often brandish snappy slogans that provoke a blind emotional response to an issue that should be considered before action is taken, and sometimes these movements support their position with quotations that seem to give their opinions unshakable truth. When considering a response to this issue I have observed on many college campuses recently, I was reminded of one of my own favorite quotations, written by Aaron Sorkin and delivered by President Jed Bartlett on The West Wing: “Every once in awhile there’s a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren’t very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that’s way too big for 10 words.” Any issue that plagues our world – from hunger and poverty to relieving the burden of Utica tornado survivors – is far too large to be closed with just a few words, smart as those words may seem.
The problem is much larger than a simplification of the issues, however. Even simplified issues can be debated upon, but unfortunately true debate has been replaced by one-sided discussion or academic “truths” on every side of an issue. A good example that will likely come to everyone’s mind is the Young Republicans – an organization that I differ with on many issues. I have received praise and comments many times for stances on issues that directly counter those offered by the Young Republicans. I am grateful for everyone who reads this column and offers an opinion – if you agree with me, I hope you have considered your reasons well, and if you disagree, I hope I have at least provoked you to think through your position. Yet, it troubles me that – for all the opposition to the Young Republicans, no one has ever cared enough to debate them on the issues. Why has no one formed the Young Democrats?
I think we all like to be right. We live in a highly competitive society, and unfortunately issues (such as the separation of church and state, to name a recent example) are so important to us – and we respond so enthusiastically to – because they affect the way our country will be run and who runs that country.
Unfortunately, we tend to make these determinations based on party affiliation or single issues.
I personally tend to be moderate in my overall view, and sometimes my stances run parallel to both sides. I like to think this is because I use my powers of reasoning to consider issues and form opinions on them tempered by intelligence, research and my own personal faith. I am a liberal Democrat, yet I believe that we were justified in bombing Afghanistan. I am a Christian, yet I believe that religion has no place dictating the laws of the United States of America, for the good of the church as well as the state. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, yet I think there is far too much evidence to do anything but accept the Big Bang theory as the true birth of our universe. I believe that a man and a woman have a right to live together before marriage (in a society with a 50 percent divorce rate, I think you just might be stupid not to), but I do not believe that same-sex marriage is legitimate.
Unfortunately, as recent debates have shown, both sides of an issue tend to have a lack of respect for the other side. Differing sides tend to make issues personal or resort to personal or general attacks against a person’s beliefs and morals, and that destroys any hope of having a legitimate debate. Some people use religion as a club, but some people use knowledge in the same manner. And neither side seems to recognize the nuances to a situation.
A good example is the abortion debate, which I will not engage in, except to say, I do not believe in abortion as a casual decision – we should not discard the life that grows in a woman as lightly as our President has discarded the lives of our soldiers “fighting for” a people that hate us – but I do not believe that the Congress or the Supreme Court has the right to make that decision for a woman, especially when the alternative is coat-hanger and back alley abortions. It’s a problem that seems simple – until you consider that two lives may be in danger instead of just one.
What we need to restore in this world, and here at IVCC, is the free exchange of ideas. I see panels that are one-sided, letters to this newspaper that raise good points in one sentence and lash out in hatred and anger in the next, and tactics against opposing viewpoints that befit neither a person of faith nor a person of intellect. I see people taking sides and moving away from each other, rather than trying to find common ground and do good collectively.
College is about discovering yourself and building your future. How can we build that future if we do not address the complexity of the issues that drive our world. What kind of future are we building when we can’t even respect each other and find our common ground?