We can do better than this

by Caitlin Flannery

Dear Friends, I think we can do better than this. I am writing in response to last week’s piece “We can do better than anonymous accusations” by Chuck Yates.

I have not been involved with the current activism on campus surrounding decision processes or with the signs, nor am I here to debate the specifics of the issues. I have been a member of this community for four years, however, and the tone of the debate has given me reason to be concerned.

While I deeply value face-to-face conversation, I want this discussion to continue in the public forum. At its base, it is about confronting who we are as a community and as an institution of higher learning.

What struck me first and foremost about last week’s piece was how it reflected the role of language. Through language we establish and negotiate relationships of power and create our reality.

Whether or not one agrees with the decision to put anonymous fliers up around campus, utilizing public space to incite conversation was one way of negotiating where student voices fit in Earlham’s community. The fliers were part of larger, organized action in which students stood behind their statements in a letter to Doug, among other things.

I understand that these issues are emotionally charged. But to say that this non-violent form of activism (postering) is doing “nothing that helps” and doing “a great deal that hurts” strikes me as perhaps a bit hyperbolic. (I think we should all recall the “End Tuition Day” posters plastered all over campus which lacked explanation or contact information yet did not provoke such a response).

Something that might be more harmful than productive, however, were the suggestions made by last week’s article on how to communicate, as well as the condescending criticisms of student action. They implied that there is a “right” and “wrong” way of putting your voice into our public space.

While it is perfectly right to critique the means, a seemingly defensive and bitingly sarcastic attack on students’ decisions to publish provocative questions and encourage change seems to stray from constructive criticism.

What’s more, implied in the suggestion that the right way is to knock on Doug’s door and tell him what you think, is that Earlham is somehow free from the prejudices and power relationships that shape the rest of our world. If only that were the case! Simply put, power doesn’t have to listen to all voices equally; that’s what having power means.

I hope we can all recognize the danger in negating the existence of power structures that come into play, even here in Quakerland. The voice of a white, male, tenured professor is, dare I say, a privileged one.

I hope that as a community we could recognize how problematic it is to imply that there is one correct way to speak and that if you do not follow that way, you will be shrugged off as “so many jackasses heehawing.” Is that a way to encourage students to continue “to pursue truth fearlessly wherever the pursuit may lead”?

History shows us that social progress comes about through a combination of paving new paths as well as working within established means. Problems occur when privileged voices define how and where under-privileged voices are heard.

I don’t mean to imply that we are a totalitarian regime, but what I thought this Quaker “liberal arts enterprise” was partially about was deepening our understanding of power structures and oppression in an attempt to make sure they are not duplicated in society at large or in our interpersonal relationships. Central to this endeavor is realizing a multitude of means to achieve a commonly desired end.

Yes, institutionally, there are many avenues to insert your voice here at Earlham. Sometimes those avenues are successful, and sometimes they are not. And, in fact, this depends partially on whose voice it is. Through four years of hearing a recurring call for greater reception of student voices and increased communication, I have felt compelled to continually examine how successful we are as a community that tries to ‘include all voices.’

It is true that students may not always have the same perspective as a long-term member of this community. That, in my opinion, is the beauty and challenge of a college.

To shut down student voices because some don’t like the way they’re coming out is missing the opportunity to combine the fresh and the long-term perspectives. Most importantly, it moves us away from being among the few colleges with the great potential to be in tune with student thought.

Caitlin Flannery is a senior Latin American studies major and can be reached at flannca@earlham.edu.

Share/Save

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.