Day of Dialogue

Yesterday, (1/19) UIS' Student Life office hosted an event called the "Day of Dialogue" which was described as: "an interactive dialogue session designed to discuss issues of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination among all members of the campus community. The purpose of a dialogue is to create productive communication on controversial topics, allow members of the community to share in a safe environment, and to celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." (No, I won't comment on the fact that Dr. King Day was on Monday and the even was held on Friday. I won't comment at all.)

Upon arrival at the event, participants (who'd been asked to register for the event...*shrug*) picked up a folder that had guidelines for discussion (dialogue vs. debate and ground rules), a biography of Dr. King's life, and a copy of his famous "I Have A Dream" speech. We were also given assignments to different groups that were identified by different colors (I was in the brown group. teehee) Then we received a greeting from our chancellor, Richard Ringeisen, and several short introductions to the event by Cynthia Thompson (Director of Student Life), Beth Hoag (Assistant Director of Student Life), Ryan Prosser (Resident Director), and Terri Jackson (Coordinator of Student Affairs).

The program began with a viewing of a short documentary, which contained Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech in its entirety. (I've already commented on how overused I think that speech is and how I think it hardly encompassed Dr. King's real vision for America.) I was immediately irked by the documentary's insistence that the theme of the march was "integration." Hardly. The official title of the march was "The March on Washington for JOBS and FREEDOM." It really had nothing to do with integration because, as we can obviously see, integration is not synonymous with economic advancements or equality. The whole belief that the central point of the march, and of the Civil Rights Movement, was integration, only deepens the incorrect assumption that the only thing that African-Americans really long for is complete assimilation. This is not the truth. What we want is equality, and black and white kids don't have to hold hands and sing Negro spirituals for that to be realized.

Next up was an exercise in which all participants were asked to stand in a straight line (which all of us couldn't fit on to), and take steps forwards or backwards depending on whether they could agree or disagree with statements such as:

"Growing up, you had your own bedroom with a door."
"One or both of your parents have college degrees."
"You have been afraid to bring a date to a function because of fear of rejection."
"You have been afraid to walk home alone at night on this campus."
"You have been followed by a security guard or clerk in a store."

In the end, I suppose those that were furthest out front were the ones who'd been able to agree with the statements that caused the most disadvantages in their lives. I've done this exercise many times before and I have two comments to make about this specific instance. First, I think that the questions could've been bolder. Secondly, I think certain questions that implied that you'd had a certain advantage in your life aren't always situations in which you're at an advantage.

We were then instructed to go back to our groups and discuss the exercise. Now, here is where things get tricky. First of all, the only people who ever come to these sorts of things are those who are already considered "liberal" or "progressive." Therefore, when you get into a group to discuss issues of race, class, gender, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, you basically have a lot of people agreeing with each other and "amen"ing each other. It turns into more of a pep rally than an honest or productive dialogue. Of course, there's not much that the creators of the event can do about that since they can't exactly force certain people to come (or not come).

So, for an hour, my group basically sat around talking about the overt injustices in this country, and how we should "all just get along." That's not my bag. I tried to interject a little fire in the discussion with my insistence that "love," "acceptance," and "tolerance" were not the keys to people truly being able to get along. It is my belief that respect is the only necessary attribute. If you don't want to be around Black people, who am I to say that you should be forced to be around them? If you don't believe that "gay marriage" is a positive thing, why shouldn't you have every right to believe that? You don't have to accept, love, or even tolerate people with different views and hues. All you have to do is respect them for the simple fact that they're a human being. Because you respect them, you will not try to enact legislation that would seek to stifle their abilities to adequately take care of their families. Out of respect, you will understand that they should have proper healthcare, housing, and educations. That's it. You don't have to live next to them, go to school with them, go to church with them, or be their friends. You just have to respect them.

I also said that the real reasons for all types of discrimination in this country was the fact that certain people are scared that if other historically downtrodden groups receive the same resources that they receive, they will lose their power, prestige, and claim to the belief that they are superior. Now, a lot of people aren't exactly comfortable with that sort of talk because it asserts that racism is not just about individuals ignorantly not liking individuals because they're different or being afraid of what they don't know. It says that discrimination is a blatant attempt by those in power to stay in power. Period. This upsets people because they believe that discrimination in the forms of racism, sexism, and homophobia can be solved with the wave of a hand because its cause is simply ignorance. But, my belief says that discrimination can only be cured when those who actively seek to discriminate are put to a stop. This, of course, is highly unlikely.

All in all, I can say that I definitely believe that the intentions of the program were very nice. But sometimes dialogue isn't really enough, especially when those dialoguing are most likely going to agree with each other. Another thing is that a lot of the actions that people seem to want to stop with programs such as these are actions that people have the right to perform.

Last year, the Society of Conservative Students put up fliers in support of their "Pie the Conservative" campaign. In my opinion, the fliers had blatantly racist and sexist statements on them. Then, the SCS put on a rally in "defense of marriage," where they had a leading anti-gay marriage speaker give a bit of a lecture. Of course, the lecture sound awfully homophobic.

Here's the thing; they only did what they were well within their rights to do. They weren't bringing any physical harm to anyone (although they did bring mental stress to many, but bigotry does that), and they have every right to express their opinions on matters no matter how closed-minded and discriminatory those opinions may sound to others. This is what happens in the real world. You don't get special treatment because people talk about you. You don't get people to sob for you or feel sorry for you. You react in whatever way you deem necessary (in this case, we reacted with the "I Believe Campaign) and you move on. Harping on it only gives these people more publicity and that's the last thing we'd like them to have.

That's UIS. That's life.