Lakshmi and Razan, I too apologize for the behaviors of that very “community” to which Jacques so desires to be a part. If these are the actions and attitudes of that community, though, I do not consider myself a member. Congratulations to the two of you for continuing to be committed enough to voice your frustration.

-J

For myself, I would like to state that if I saw anyone enacting this kind of hatred on campus, I would report the incident immediately, and let the vandals know that I was doing so; I implore other students who witness these crimes to do the same.

I am appalled by what happened last Saturday. I apologize to Kannan and Khabour on behalf of my classmates, and hope they know there are some here who are willing to listen, and to take action.

As I said several times in my response, I’ve got no doubt that what happened to you was not in fact an isolated incident, so let’s acknowledge that we agree on that. That doesn’t change the fact that your letter failed by any standard to prove that point, opting instead to describe the disconnect between what it says in our Course Catalogue and what you personally see as infectious narrow-mindedness, then concluding with a counter-attack on your peers.

You could have easily pulled up any number of articles in this paper detailing past instances of similar events, cited those as examples so as to underscore the pervasiveness you speak of, then gone on to say, as Angelica seems to think you did, that you want to see a change in campus, a turn away from this kind of behavior.

I assure you I haven’t fallen into anything. Your letter evinces no hope for your community; you’ve written off the people who would help you with a maximum of self-righteous disdain. It’s absolutely the equivalent to parading with a “FUCK YOU” sign, and, regardless of what befell you on Festivus, is unwarranted and counterproductive. It sums to an eye for an eye on a grand scheme, and will produce nothing good.

Setting aside your interpretation of the authors’ points, your interpretation of mine seems myopic at best. I don’t make any statements at all about the relative wrongnesses of vandalism and condescension. Nor do I compare the victims of this vandalism to the putative victims of condescension. That’s all you. I’m not sticking up for anyone in specific so much as decrying the approach these very rightfully frustrated individuals have taken in voicing their anger and disgust.

I say: Be angry, be disgusted, but don’t in lieu of having specific individuals to target then go ahead and target literally everyone around you.

The former refers to the traditional understanding of the word- principles and policies of a conservative political party- mostly a philosophy based on established institutions, stability, etc.

The latter “conservative of thought” which is what I am calling out on – and is omnipresent at Conn- is the inability and outright rejection to expend any energy and thought into understanding a different view point.
Some of the comments seem to suggest a blurring of these two different concepts.

But as a graduating senior I am also extremely pessimistic about the evolution of the political culture at Conn as I find MOST of my peers to be unwilling to engage in discussions regarding international politics. In fact most students here are so pathetically ignorant of global issues that it’s hard to even imagine having a extensive discussion on anything beyond may be US pop culture. This is my opinion from my own personal experience. Come, May 2010.

I think your ‘real’ criticism of a ‘nominal’ open letter has some definite academic validity. The expression “the narrow minded conservatism that plagues this student body” for example does reflect a somewhat unfair generalization of the people who subscribe to conservative political ideologies, as you rightly point out. And yes I do think the writers could have chosen better expressions.

But unfortunately, your academic criticism of some problematic expressions in the letter completely dismisses the legitimate frustration of the writers. And as someone who has always struggled to come in terms with the general lack of political sensibilities on campus, it deeply saddens me that you have chosen to go after the presentation of the letter rather than its larger implications. I think what this letter deserves is not a critical readership but at the very least an unconditional acknowledgment of victimization.

As pessimistic as I am about the evolution of a culturally sensitive, pluralistic, and an inclusive political culture at Conn, I do believe that it is in these very moments of hurtful individual experiences that we can expect to begin our search for common grounds.