In the wake of the recent protest on DePauw’s campus, many have begun to assess the quality of conversation following the protest, which occurred during a university dialogue session in Ubben Quad. The aim of the gathering, according to an email by President Casey, was to “allow [the] campus to come together and show solidarity and support for one another.” However, despite unifying to discuss the abhorrent nature of the protestors, many used the forum to voice their feelings of marginalization and ostracism.
During the past few years, DePauw has presumably undergone an evolving problem: a perceived disconnect between marginalized groups and non-marginalized groups. Many campus wide initiatives have been launched, such as the Day of Inclusion, but the problem still seems to persist, according to some groups. "We have these forums all the time and nothing changes,” asserted a student during the session. Following, another brave student affirmed, “I’m tired of being threatened.”
Obviously, deep feelings of animosity and hostility have saturated beyond sensitive conversations in the classroom. As a DePauw student, I am intrigued to understand specific examples that may have produced such unsustainable levels of apprehension.
Last January, DePauw’s administration tried to answer this question with the “DePauw Dialogue,” which brought intellectuals and experts from various fields. Dr. Derald Sue, a notable professor at Columbia University, suggested a driving cause in this campus disconnect could be heavily attributed to microaggressions, that can be defined as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.” Despite his virtuous intentions, Dr. Sue brought racial themes to the forefront of discussion.
Instead of grounding the conversation in the content of one’s character, Sue brought forth an intellectual assessment that immediately apportioned people into racial camps. According to his assessment, we are placed in a descriptive box. Personally, I believe this thinking process signals a misconstrued message—and it’s a message that further deepens divisions among students.
We must not confine our discernments of each other to the inherent boundary of race. The only way for our campus to grow will be to change our mode of thinking.
Dr. Martin Luther King embodied this call during his “I Have A Dream Speech,” in which he affirmed, “I look to one day when people are not judged by the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.”
The same principle applies to our generation. As students, we must audaciously break down the descriptive barriers preventing us from having a meaningful dialogue, and we should begin to focus our conversation on the intrinsic value of human beings as individuals, not their physical appearance.
In order for us to adequately alleviate campus tensions, we must adjust our thinking, placing a premium value on the sacredness and inviolability of life.
Regardless of our race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion—life is to be revered, and we should unite in its protection.
As citizens, we can solve this problem by practicing the basic principles of decency and love. We don’t have to agree, but we must exert a high level of mutual respect for each other, and we must ground ourselves in honor and civility.
Dr. King proclaimed this notion by asserting, “Darkness will not drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
We must begin a meaningful conversation with a love and respect for one another.
We must be able to say, “Yes, All Lives Matter."
-Froedge is a sophomore political science and economics double major from New Castle, Indiana.