Reasoned expression in academic writing and, most importantly, in public discourse should be our goal. Needless polemics and crude language do nothing to advance a personal or public philosophy. The most recent offering from the conservative voice here at the College points out the need for a reasoned conversation, not the contentious and insulting locution of strident voices raised in anger at those with whom they disagree.
Words. Seems we can't get enough of them. We read daily newspapers for the facts behind the stories. We read novels for a glimpse into the lives of others. We read and read and read. It's what we do. Words collected on the page, spoken at the lectern or hurled through the ether and caught by a dish nailed to the side of our house determine, for a great many of us, how we choose to live. There are not many that could say, and have it be the truth, that what is spoken or written near to or about them does not affect them personally.
This predilection for the truth brought us to this place so that we might learn the skills necessary to make deliberate choices about what it is we will do with the time allotted to our mortal frame. We came to listen and to write. To do these things well we must think. Expressing our thoughts clearly and concisely, be it in student publications, through academic descant in research papers or from a soapbox on the Green, is the primary use to which this rigorous liberal arts education will be put. When words are carelessly used, whether in ignorance or in a misguided attempt to express a personal ideology, then real people are affected.
Words have power over us. This is a simple fact that all here in the academy would agree is true. To rationalize the use of language deeply offensive to people as simply the unfortunate choice of a couple of misguided fraternity members and then to characterize that language as simply "silly obscene," and "words that many people don't like," disrespects the power given to those who write for public consumption.
Reasoned discourse does not include labeling people as "miscreants" or characterizing the protest against the abuse of women as "shrill." Using it thusly demonstrates a willful or at least an ignorant disregard for the ability of words composed, set and published to offend, anger and wound.
Taking an unpopular stance in opposition to generally accepted standards or "regnant ideology" -- here I must acknowledge the perfect word choices of the previously mentioned conservative voice -- is a courageous act. Taking up the sword and shield of dissent to do battle with the forces that would deny a free speech is a fine American tradition, one fostered within the academy. What dulls that sword and breaks the shield is the inability to give that opposing voice words to articulate its heartfelt disagreement without alienating the very public the voice is trying to reach. Simply decrying those with whom one disagrees, labeling them with importunate and disgraceful words such as "cretinous," fails to meet the standard of decency that the conservative members of the College would have us believe is part of their philosophy.
Discourse means in its most basic sense a conversation. Conversation means a give and take, a discussion where both sides can be heard. Discourse doesn't mean automatically pushing away those to whom you appear to be reaching out to with harsh labels and unsupportable accusations. I suggest logging on to DCIS and opening the Oxford Dictionary before heeding a compulsion to fling ersatz pearls before those whom are thought to be unenlightened swine. A bit of research and a modicum of analysis conducted before and after the construction of an argument will strengthen the message. Respect is something that needs to be earned, you cannot purchase it with a place on the masthead, it must be bought with the use of a passionate but controlled account of what a writer believes is the true course through the welter of our modern lives.
There is already enough unnecessary divergence here on campus and throughout the country. One only need drive across the bridge to find that polarization displayed on the barns and bumpers of Vermonters. The fostering of division between groups was another topic considered in the nameless conservative forum obliquely discussed here. This idea of social division whether by a self-selection or institutional practices and policies is well worth considering and it is of true importance to America today. Division, however, cannot be discussed with the language of alienation. Opposing ideologies cannot be discussed with the language of confrontation and disrespect. Raise the standard of discussion and you will raise the numbers of those who agree with your argument.
