Drake University prides itself on its diversity initiatives. Liberal arts emphasize well-rounded education, including exposure to multiple perspectives. Students are often part of several organizations, attend classes with people from many different backgrounds and believe in open-minded communication. Diversity and tolerance are preached and prioritized.
I’m here to call (some of) it lip service.
It’s my observation that Drake leans towards the left. The majority of people I listen to in my politics classes tend to hold more left-wing beliefs. Although I find the current national Democratic platform and (lack of) leadership distasteful, I personally tend to hold more liberal beliefs.
I have no problem criticizing either Republicans or Democrats. If the abhorrent two-party system weren’t so ingrained and overpowering, I imagine that I’d spend more time criticizing independent politicians, too. My point is, someone’s identification with a political party does not exempt them from criticism.
I’m inclined to write off any partisan claim to the moral high ground as manipulative, useless or lazy. Similarly, someone’s identification with a political party should not be taken as their entire identity and most notable trait.
The claim that right-wingers are intolerant has seemingly become not just a left-wing talking point, but an informing factor of left-wing behavior. Even at Drake, it’s surprisingly been the more liberal students that I’ve found the most intolerant towards other viewpoints.
I want to make one thing clear. This is not a defense of right-wing policy or politicians. This is a critique of left-wing intolerance.
Here is a list of some things I’ve heard students who identify as liberals say.
“Anyone who’s in the Drake Republicans should be ashamed.”
“They’re [conservatives on campus] disgusting. I don’t know how they live with themselves.”
“Isn’t she in the Drake Republicans? Ew.”
Those statements worry me for so many reasons.
Liberal students, I’m not saying that you need to accept or agree with another person’s opinion. I’m not telling anyone what opinions you ought and ought not find reasonable. I’m saying that you ought to be open to at least hearing it. I’m saying that another person’s different opinion does not make that opinion less valid and that person less human. I’m telling you to have a conversation with them.
I’m a massive believer in debate and far less seduced by validation. I’m not (normally) interested in winning or being right; I’m interested in learning. I’m interested in testing and weighing my ideas against someone else’s and seeing how they fare in a context that I don’t control. I’m interested in improving and strengthening my position through interpersonal interaction. It’s almost like Socrates was onto something.
Obviously, it’s outright disrespectful to turn a conversation into an argument, resort to name-calling, or directly antagonize another person for disagreeing with you. But I find the lack of willingness to have these types of conversations in the first place to be another, possibly more insidious, form of disrespect.
That refusal and subsequent shunning, to me, has several harmful, implicit messages: “You don’t deserve to be heard. I’m invalidating you as a person without spending time or effort to engage with your position. You’re a bad person for thinking this way.”
On a human level, I see that as dehumanizing.
I’ve witnessed a lot of holier-than-thou shunning as a result of certain people thinking that others are wrong or evil because of their beliefs. When I hear people voice that type of opinion and I push back, I’m often asked, “What’s the point? Conservatives don’t listen, and they’re not open to any viewpoint that’s not their own. I’m not going to change their mind.”
As a side note, I love irony.
“What’s the point?” is the wrong question to ask. No conversation has a guaranteed outcome, and the question seems to assume that “changing minds” is the goal. Can’t a conversation exist just to exchange ideas and spend time together? Does there have to be a point?
But politically, intolerance is a bad strategy rooted in short-term and overly idealistic thinking. Things don’t happen in a vacuum. No matter how many protests you attend, petitions you sign, donations you give and stories you repost, progressive movements require more than beliefs. It requires a base of support. And oftentimes, it requires a coalition of people that don’t necessarily hold the exact same thoughts as you, but are still useful allies to pursue a larger, unifying goal.
No matter which party controls Congress’ chambers, compromise is vital. Compromise is not a sellout or an ideal; it is pragmatic and strategic.
To the liberals who believe that the right wing is the only side driving polarization in American society, I invite you to spend some time reflecting.
There’s one more aspect of this topic that I want to address, and I know I need to do it carefully.
“If your politics disrespect me or invalidate my rights, then your beliefs are invalid, and you don’t belong in my life.”
I understand this viewpoint. I respect it. I don’t agree, but I don’t think it matters if I agree or not. If that’s what someone wants to do — cut people out because of how someone’s beliefs impact their life — then I’ll defend their right to make that choice.
Personally, I’m not one to cut someone off purely because of politics. I don’t think it helps me or is conducive to creating the society I want to live in.
Might I judge you for your politics? Absolutely, because your politics impact more people than just you. But will I judge you solely based on your politics? No, because I recognize that you are human and likely have more to who you are than what you think about the American political system. At least, I hope you do. If not, I recommend touching grass and trying hobbies.
If you, like me, believe in diversity, tolerance and choice, then I implore you: take the time to have the hard, uncomfortable and sometimes infuriating conversations.
And if anyone is pissed off by this piece and wants to let me know, feel free to email me. I’ll listen to what you have to say.
