The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

RUNKEL: Civil discourse is not a silver bullet

Direct action ought to command respect for its potency

<p>The rejuvenated spirit of action at the University, paired with the decidedly alive civil discourse, can usher in material change.</p>

The rejuvenated spirit of action at the University, paired with the decidedly alive civil discourse, can usher in material change.

This school is too enamored with civil discourse. Open dialogue, the Millian “marketplace of ideas” for which we enlightened folk froth at the mouth, is an ideal which has been forced into the real world. The “discussion and debate” that University President Teresa Sullivan asked for following the shrouding of a Thomas Jefferson statue is by itself lovely — it calls for a blind Lady Justice-like figure with only the notions of right and good tipping the scales. I truly believe in its importance, but it is undoubtedly too pure for its own good. Outside this fanciful realm, people tip the scales and create the world around us. Good and right are decided fully by the norms their actions demarcate.

In light of this, it’s clear how the civil discourse we ostensibly crave fails us. Apathy and passivity are the cruelest enemies we muster against political speech. When’s the last time you saw even 1,000 people — five percent of the student body — at a non-entertainment event here? These agents are aided by proliferating clubs with narrower and narrower interests, so that mustering a significant audience for the marketplace of ideas (speeches, debates, etc.) is almost impossible.

The scant instances I’ve seen — Cornel West, Khizr Khan, Hillary-Trump debates — were filled with people who had already made up their minds about the speakers and their views. These events shifted perspectives and broadened conceptions for too few. And the failings of discourse and idea sharing is no novelty — the Constitution’s free-speech provision reveals its writers understood the shortcomings of civil discourse, enumerating the freedom to assemble among the first rights of Americans. From Boston’s Tea Party to Pittsburgh’s steel strikes to Birmingham’s boycotts, the 230-odd year quest for rights and power in America has flowed through uncivil discourse.

In fact, it is this very system of collective cries for justice which keeps the American democratic project honest. It functions as a release valve for direct democracy, a way to decode public opinion beyond the one-dimensional support of electoral candidates. Because of this crucial role, the uncivil discourse — protests, rallies and other forms of victimless political mischief — ought to be respected on Grounds, as it has greater power than most of the civil discourse here. Calls for civil discourse and “productive dialogue” ignore their impotency, and misunderstand the purpose of protesting.

A protest, a great one, arrests the attention — this often implies novel or shocking means. Through the cries of incensed alumni, it’s still clear that the shrouding of the Jefferson statue a month ago fulfilled these two conditions very, very well. It offered the conclusions of a massive amount of civil discourse in a simple 12-item list of demands, a cry for help. It was never intended to offer the formally-analyzable arguments a philosophy essay would. Instead, it’s an invitation to adopt and further the conclusions if self-evident, or to come listen and consider the premises.

The real key of protesting, of rallies, of political disobedience, is not to replace civil discourse, but to bolster and humanize it. That gem of civil discourse is not to be found on the Rotunda steps, but in the reserved rooms of New Cabell and Monroe Hall, where so many social justice and political advocacy groups meet. It happens in past-midnight dorm conversations, and during raucous nights on the Corner. It happens in seminars, and throughout interminable labs. It happens through organizations like Sustained Dialogue, PULSE and even in stodgy debating societies. It happens in the city around us, advertised on the boards next to the Chapel and in Alderman. Civil discourse is alive and well at the University, if you open your ears. Protests are for those who do not, in the hopes that they will.

Direct action matches faces to statistics questionable in a post-truth world. Moreover, in placing movements for all to see, in front of the Rotunda for example, people’s default apathy can be circumvented. Hopefully, it engages new people, outside of the politics-saturated College, whose studies focus on the doing, above the thinking. As we saw in August, clear delineations must be made between protesting for a cause, and acting against involuntary classes of people, with threat and force to harm (one might wonder how a gun-toting student body may change the nature of drunken arguments at the Virginian). But the student-led actions here have not dealt in such virulence. Even when radical, their notions have been considered, their causes just. Mere words, however true, will not be our panacea — assembly is thankfully a vital component of free speech in this country. The rejuvenated spirit of action at the University, paired with the decidedly alive civil discourse, can usher in material change.

Corey Runkel is a second-year in the College and a member of the Living Wage Campaign at U.Va.

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt