Allow me to describe the following event: On Monday night there occurred an "open forum" in Rockefeller 2. The speakers included Giavanna Munafo, self-described liberal Director of the Women's Resource Center, and Lia Monahon '98, the WRC intern. The two women were to lead a forum on the topic of "Feminism in Today's Society," a reasonable enough subject for individuals in their respective positions. The group "sponsoring" the forum? The Conservative Union at Dartmouth, also known as CUAD.
An odd choice of speakers for this particular group, at least at first glance. "Feminism" in any and all of its manifestations is usually, if not exclusively, associated with a more left-leaning ideology. It seemed that Munafo would likely be addressing and supporting many ideas directly opposed by members of CUAD, perhaps by definition. Thus, regardless of the respect that the audience might hold for Munafo, conflict, at least ideological, was inevitable. It would be like inviting Pat Buchanan to lead a forum on immigration reform, sponsored by the Young Democrats. Not a great idea.
What, then, does it mean to sponsor a speaker? Why on earth would CUAD invite Giavanna Munafo to lead a forum? From there we ask, what is the true purpose of a forum and was that purpose realized on Monday night? The purpose expressed by the representative of CUAD was merely "to address an important topic" -- a noble enough goal.
From the American Heritage Dictionary in Dartmouth's Online Library, a forum is most relevantly defined in two ways. The first is: "A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation." The second is: "A public meeting place for open discussion" (thus "open forum," as here defined, is redundant).
As a member of the audience which was mixed both in gender and ideology, I can attest that Monday's forum conformed easily to both these definitions. It was public; there was much discussion; Munafo and Monahon could certainly be considered experts; there was audience participation; there was open discussion.
That is, the discussion was open in the sense that anyone was free to speak when called on. However, although the forum and the discussion may have been "open," many of the minds present were not. The issues addressed by Munafo, granted, were occasionally both controversial and debatable. Yet, the ensuing "discussion" was in marked contrast to the civilized debate that I have found so beneficial in many a class. Much of the discussion focused less on understanding other people's ideas and more on an intellectual one-up-manship. Several members of the audience, armed with statistics and an alarming skepticism, seemed eager to contest any statement that Munafo made. It was clear that their minds were made up and any suggestions contrary to their own would be greeted with hostility.
Although there were only about 30 people in attendance in Rocky 2 on Monday night, I examine this forum because I fear it may be representative of many such examples of "debate" on this campus. This is not exclusively a conservative problem by any means. Many of us would benefit from a greater understanding of truly open discussion which is the essence of a liberal arts education.
The formation of strong, founded opinions, political and otherwise, is one goal of a liberal arts education. However, this can only be achieved through the analysis and understanding of a wide range of differing ideas. There is nothing wrong with having opinions; it is when we cease to even consider the possibility of the opinions of others that we commit a grave error. It can be disconcerting to have one's beliefs challenged at any age, but this is no excuse for the barely civil hostility I witnessed on Monday night. Age twenty is far too young to be sure about anything. Until we listen to one another and cease the intellectual butting of heads, no real progress can be made in either our own attitudes or in those of society.
At the end of the forum on Monday, the crucial question was raised: Can a true Conservative be a Feminist? The question was answered inconclusively as "No." It appears, as Munafo said, that it would be impossible for any one person to take both theories seriously. Perhaps, though, some members of CUAD will get inspired and attempt to form a feminist sub-group. Stranger things have happened, I suppose. They could call it Feminist Union of Conservatives at Dartmouth: FUCD.
As are we all, if we close our minds.
