REFLECTIONS On Complexions III, a race relations forum that was held Friday night, was a failure. The people and the work behind the event were quite amazing. Portman Wills simulated the "Who Wants To Be a Racial Millionaire" game very believably, the introductory video was funny and provocative and the organization and presentation were well crafted.
But a race relations forum can't be judged on the amusements and on the ingenuity and devotion of those behind it; it has to be judged on its results. "Reflections" is a Band-Aid, a quick fix that tends to suppress deep issues by making its participants feel as though they've made more progress than they have.
At "Reflections," anyone can speak. It's an "open discussion." Everyone should have the right to speak. But let's not confuse this with everyone having something worthwhile, intelligent or constructive to say. Many students did have smart things to say. But just as many had fingers to point, angry words to unleash, and unfounded generalizations to offer.
This year "Reflections" saw personal attacks and blaming when people brought up opposing viewpoints. So instead of peaceful discussion of points, and other healthy back-and-forth, there were a lot of cute - and sometimes unnecessarily emotionally charged - ways to tell others that they were wrong.
The format was somewhat to blame. The host asked questions about various race related issues at the University and each time appealed to the audience. But there were enough issues that no discussion on any particular issue exceeded 30 minutes. So we heard a diversity of opinions, some informed, others downright emotional or uninformed or both on many issues. The discussion can't be taken seriously, however, because there simply wasn't enough time to treat comprehensively the issues discussed. In this way, participants could go home patting themselves on the back for dealing with real issues. But, in reality, the treatment was entirely superficial.
|
For instance, the issue of minority representation on the faculty was raised. The audience was asked to address whether we had enough minority faculty members or too few. This is a subjective judgment. But before we even get there, one might want to address positively how many minority professors we have. Nobody presented information on this - not the event moderators and none of the students in the audience either. The audience seemed to come to a consensus on there being "too few" minority professors.
It's surprising that a whole auditorium was able to arrive at an agreement on a subjective judgment that rests on knowing an objective fact without even hearing anything objective. The reason the auditorium came to a consensus is because the tone of the night wasn't one of discussion but of bullying and brow-beating into agreement. Dissenters on this issue were quickly scolded and their voices were silenced by virtue of the obvious disapproval that the audience would continue to meet them with.
In fact, some people who spoke had their words twisted just for the sake of provoking controversy. One of the moderators said that she tries to get out of her "comfort zone" and meet others, especially minorities. It's pretty clear what she meant. One woman got up and said, "Don't come talk to me to get out of your 'comfort zone.' Come talk to me if you want to be my friend and get to know me." Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Obviously, you don't go talk to another unless you want to learn something about them, but it could be uncomfortable and unusual at the same time. We should commend people who move beyond their comfort frontiers. This silly forum praised the girl who advocated the closing of communication - the side saying don't talk to me if you're uncomfortable - and was negative toward the girl who attempted to communicate more openly, even if it's uncomfortable to do so. And wait, isn't communication despite discomfort the very goal that "Reflections" was in pursuit of?
The whole event was like a bad "The Oprah Winfrey Show." People walked away feeling they had accomplished something. They fed themselves the typical garbage about this being a beginning, not an end. But at the end of the evening, no one in the auditorium was to be seen exchanging numbers, e-mail addresses or other information to continue this communication in smaller groups, where such communication might be more constructive and engaging than it is debilitating and mean-spirited.
Maybe the party afterward was where the discussion continued. But one wonders if it was the promise of booze or concern over race relations that brought it about.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at jeisenberg@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 21 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
