We write this on a Saturday night sitting in the third floor of Wright, not just any Saturday night but the night of Festivus.
We came to Wright because there was a floor party with beer pong on our floor in Lamdin and needless to say, it was not the most conducive environment to work on a paper.
Around midnight, a friend who lives next door to me in Lambdin (who bravely attempted to stay and work in her room in spite of the beer pong game outside) called to inform me that a bunch of drunk students were creating a ruckus outside both of our doors.
The cause: a “FREE PALESTINE” sticker pasted on both of our doors.
They were using language that I do not wish to reproduce here to express their disgust at the sticker and vowed to find “these people” who live in that room to ask them a thing or two.
Curious to see these people, we went back to Lambdin. But by the time we reached they had left, as someone had passed out and the focus had clearly shifted. My friend had an “ALLY” button on her door, next to the FREE PALESTINE sticker, and the ally button had disappeared since we had left Lambdin two hours before.
We write this article not to start a debate on the content of sticker itself. The issue of Free Palestine is one that creates extreme emotions on this campus, and we are all entitled to our own opinions.
We write this instead to express our utter disgust and disappointment on the narrow minded conservatism that plagues this student body when it comes to political issues.
Connecticut College claims to be a space where students and faculty engage in healthy debate on a variety of issues, where students allow themselves to be challenged and challenge their peers, where we learn from one another’s lived experiences and knowledge and other flowery language that fills the college catalogue. I had always been skeptical of it.
But tonight’s incidence only reiterated how small our minds and visions actually are to different ideas and opinions.
And this is not the first time stickers such as this has elicited such intense emotions. But as we mentioned before, this piece is not intended to necessarily begin a debate about the content.
We are disappointed beyond words. We consider ourselves invested, interested and engaged seniors at Connecticut College. On most days, we are proud to be students of this great institution.
But this very night, as we both wrote few of the last papers of our college career, we cannot wait to graduate and move to a place where people are actually receptive to new ideas, beyond that of flowery language in catalogues.
We also hope that someday our peers will find the courage to truly challenge themselves and their beliefs and be sincerely open to new ideas, rather than claiming to do so in their narrow comfortable minds.
Thank you both for writing this. I think many students have experienced or seen similar acts of narrowmindedness on this campus — whether it comes to political affiliations/leanings, gender, race, or sexual orientation. But the lack of understanding (and lack of attempt to understand) global political issues in particular is not often discussed, and I find is more and more prevalent the longer I am on campus.
Every student should be leaving Conn with a better understanding of the world around them and the open-mindedness to appreciate points of view that differ from their own (perhaps even seek them out!).
Apparently this is not happening.
I sincerely hope that the students involved with this event on Saturday read this article and acknowledge their narrowmindedness and read/discuss this issue and others with those with differing views.
Because how else can we learn if we only speak with others who affirm our opinions as the only correct ones? And how are we growing as individuals if we attempt to squelch differing points of view, rather than seek to learn from them?
So, I’ve got a few concerns about your nominally open letter.
First, because of the tenor of the overheard comments and their apparent vandalism, let’s grant at the outset that the perpetrators you describe were 100% at fault, utterly wrong in their behavior, and should be reprimanded. Let’s go even further and grant that this probably wasn’t an isolated incident, that these same people or people like them have done similar and similarly wrong things before and since.
Now. How on Earth do you get from this group or groups of ill-tempered fools to “the narrow minded conservatism that plagues this student body”? In this rhetorical move, you’ve gone from the specific to the general with nothing but indignation to bridge the gap. Surely there are narrow-minded conservatives on our campus, as there are on every campus. Does that mean they constitute a ‘plague’?
Even then, it’s a plague of what now? Narrow-mindedness and conservatism? Firstly, although you’re trying to stay neutral about Palestine, speaking about “a plague of conservatism” is a pretty uncharitable stance to take against people who identify politically as Conservatives. Not very open-minded of you, is it? Brings us to the plague of narrow-mindedness. How does one go about even measuring relative levels of open-mindedness on a campus, let alone making proclamations about it? What even constitutes open-mindedness when it comes to politics? A willingness to consider any theory or position? What if your vandals duly considered the “Free Palestine” position but then rejected it? They’d still be vandals, and possibly bigots depending on how you interpret “these people”, but open-mindedness hasn’t anything to do with it.
It’s bad enough to make a shoddy and unsupported argument decrying some indeterminate, unidentified mass of people. But to do so and then sign off with this?:
“We also hope that someday our peers will find the courage to truly challenge themselves and their beliefs and be sincerely open to new ideas, rather than claiming to do so in their narrow comfortable minds”
Ho-ly shit. Greater heights of condescension this paper has never seen. God help all of us, with our narrow, comfortable minds. What are you going to do next time you need a lab partner, or a study group, or a ride from the train station? Apparently, literally everyone on campus is at fault. Why not just write a big sign that says “FUCK YOU”, tape it to your chest, and then have a walk around the library? Newspaper readership may be up, but that method would transmit your message way more effectively.
I have no doubt that this incident is but one of many intolerant, ignorant, viscerally disgusting acts that befalls students on our campus. And it follows then that there are, without a doubt, intolerant bigots who walk among us, protected by fear or fortune. But obliquely vilifying and then viciously lambasting your peers cannot possibly be the right response. In doing so, you are alienating countless others who would be ready to help and listen, choosing instead to cut a wide swath of hatred and arrogance. Pursue that route, and the campus you can’t wait to leave will be twice as glad to see you gone.
You claim that it is a “rhetorical leap” to see this incident as part of a systematic problem of closemindedness on this campus. I would counter that “lone gunman” theories like yours are primarily used to brush aside problems that are much more pervasive. Reading the school newspaper frequently, it becomes clear that vandalism of political material is a frequent occurrence. Paying greater attention to the climate on campus reveals that bringing light to certain topics that we have as a community have labeled “controversial” (such as the subject of Palestine) is met with enormous resistance and any open dialogue is stymied.
I agree with the writers (who I applaud for their bravery for being vocal about the touchiest of touchy subjects at Conn) that this absolutely shows that many of our peers do not want to engage with challenging or opposing points of view. What the writers critique is the conservatism of young adults who when given an opportunity to sift through and give serious thought to a variety of political perspectives, don’t. It’s not a matter of “pro-Palestine” or “pro-Israel” here, it’s a matter of the ability to respect our peers’ differing views of the world. And so as you say, these people are free to reject any opinion they find unpalatable. Obviously, they are not however licensed to become hostile, abusive, or destructive.
What I am particularly interested in is the nature of your response. While you would grant that these people might perhaps have been wrong for being vandals, it is clear you feel that the greater crime! was committed here! sheer condescension that cannot stand! The worst of all sins at Connecticut College: someone Has Become Alienated!
You do not consider the possiblity that other students might agree with these writers, might be similarly appauled by such behavior, might be impressed that these writers want to change a climate of behavior that we too witness. Rather you so grandiously stick up for those who have been truly harmed here, the nameless, faceless, few Who Have Been Alienated.
My question, then, is what is wrong with being alienated? Are you obligated to agree with everything that I might say? Am I obligated to say nothing to which you might disagree?
Are you simply proving the point this article is trying to make about this brand of parlyzed conservatism?
No lone gunman theory here. If you reread my response, you’ll find that the second sentence concedes that this likely wasn’t an isolated incidence, a sentiment I repeat without qualification in the last paragraph. I make not only the same point you do about the frequency of vandalism, but an even stronger point about the proliferation of vandals and bigots. I assure you, I am not ignorant to the presence of either.
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.
I’m disappointed to read things like this because it’s honestly so true and so disappointing to see some things here, and on many american campuses just don’t change. Jacques, you may have some good points, but with 8 “thumbs up” or “likes” or whatever, I don’t think their article is alienating or offending anyone. I took their argument against “conservatives” not as “Conservatives,” but people who narrowly, comfortably rest on their own opinions, assuming their right and that others who disagree are simply wrong. Have you spoken to international students at Conn? Most are completely frustrated by the lack of knowledge on global political issues and assumptions american students make on a daily basis. Most were clueless about problems between Georgia and Russia, and have left the American media to fill them with assumptions about other global issues. Try reading a different paper than the times or Wall Street Journal. So much bias is in those papers when it comes to international concerns. Try reading online global news not written by Americans, and the story is often quite different. It’s important to be informed about as many sides of a political dilemma before drawing a conclusion. And never ok to vandalize or verbally assault someone whose opinion differs from yours.
Claire makes a good point that we often hear about cases of other forms of discrimination, so why aren’t political and global forms of discrimination where vandalism or other hate crimes are committed even brought up? Or ever brought up? How often are articles of international concern written by international students even published in the paper?
Jacques,
Re: “Even then, it’s a plague of what now? Narrow-mindedness and conservatism? Firstly, although you’re trying to stay neutral about Palestine, speaking about “a plague of conservatism” is a pretty uncharitable stance to take against people who identify politically as Conservatives.”
I suggest you re read the article more carefully, we are not decrying the opinion on the politcal issue. If you had read the article clearly, you would read the statement “each one of us are entitled to your own opinions” – that to me is not an “uncharitable stance to take against people who identify politically as conservatives.” You seem to miss the larger issue- the method of threating physical harassment – such expression of their opinion is disgusting and offensive and I would even say outright dangerous to individuals’ physical safety!
“How on Earth do you get from this group or groups of ill-tempered fools to “the narrow minded conservatism that plagues this student body”? ”
Perhaps you were not aware of the number of events put together by different student groups- atlas, Arabic Language fellows, and just groups of students with no particular affiliation on this issue over the past 4 years (I take it you are a senior). If you had actually attended one of these events, and witnessed the heated discussions following them, then you probably wouldnt have made that comment. Check your facts, thats not too much to ask for.
Re: “Ho-ly shit. Greater heights of condescension this paper has never seen. God help all of us, with our narrow, comfortable minds. What are you going to do next time you need a lab partner, or a study group, or a ride from the train station? Apparently, literally everyone on campus is at fault. Why not just write a big sign that says “FUCK YOU”, tape it to your chest, and then have a walk around the library? Newspaper readership may be up, but that method would transmit your message way more effectively.”
I think you might have perhaps fallen trap to your own accusation. Such a comment to me is pretty “lambasting” of two individuals who actually took out the time to express their opinion.
Its a pity this is the kind of reaction this article evokes- one of immediate defense and offense, rather than actually questioning the layers of issues that is presented in this incident.
Lakshmi
Sorry, but conjecturing that, had I only come to an ATLAS meeting, I would have surely not made the comment I made does not in and of itself constitute a rebuttal of that comment. Nor does asserting that this widespread trend is self-evident constitute an argument as to its existence or scope. More to the point, I don’t see how my attending a meeting or lecture would have made a difference. My argument doesn’t concern itself with the truth of falsity of your claim about The Plagues. Rather, it focuses on the logical gap between describing in specific terms what happened to you and describing in vague terms what you see as a widespread trend on campus.
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.
@Jacques “Apparently, literally everyone on campus is at fault”
Yes, everyone is if they vandalise property. Your point about conservatism considered, and agreed with, violence in reaction to a world-view or political stance in a college dormitory is a crime. Your response is a well-articulated attempt at pointing out shortcomings of the authors’ reactions to the situation in question, but in the end it seems to contradict your suggestion itself, for you have not cared to explore the motivations of the authors’ the background of this situation, referred to similar incidents on campus and in the end given an argument which is reductionist. The value in your critique is that of suggesting a more amicable approach to the potential discussion of this kind of matter, and I agree with that – yes, conservatism is to be respected as much as any other scheme, and I think that is what the authors are saying, and so also it is not narrow-minded to express openly in a college newspaper that your personal material was vandalised by someone who didn’t agree with you.
Jacques,
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.
I’d’ve been more than happy to provide an unconditional acknowledgement of victimization, had I not myself been made a target by their letter. Moreover, based on the authors’ response, I have every reason to believe that, no matter what I say, it will be dismissed out of hand as merely the affectation of open-mindedness, rather than a genuine expression thereof.
I know the article was not meant to “start a debate on the content of sticker itself”. But I think it’s about time we also OPENLY discuss the content (i.e, the Israel/Palestine conflict) of the sticker on this campus as I also agree that this is one of the “touchiest of touchy subjects at Conn” (not to mention rest of the world). It seems obvious to me that people have strong opinions that they badly want to express. If “Connecticut College educates students to put the liberal arts into action as citizens in a global society”, it’s only normal that we create space to discuss one of the most bloody and long lasting conflicts in the history of time. Surely it would be hypocritical to be apathetic.
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 want to point out the difference between being a conservative” or “to have conservative values” and to be “conservative of thought”
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.
Jacques: You are not a student at Connecticut College, and therefore, not a target of Lakshmi Kannan & Razan Khabour’s letter.
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.
You’re right, Matt. I’m _not_ a student. A million thanks for the reminder, don’t know how I could have been so foolish. Everything I said is hereby null and void. Disregard it in full, world!
Sorry for the hasty sarcasm, mayne. A response in earnest: I consider myself a member of what’s known as the ‘college community’, closely aligned with students proper and fiercely protective of its integrity. Ergo it’s appropriate not only that I took offense, but that I reacted.
-J
“Greater heights of condescension this paper has never seen” since you, Jacques.
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.