If my Orient reading habits are at all representative of the Bowdoin population, I generally turn straight to the Security Report and then flip to the letters to the editor. I typically enjoy the Opinion section, reading the potpourri of ideas tossed around. However, towards the end of last year, I grew less satisfied with the section. The discourse started to degenerate toward name calling and shy away from actual academic discussion. I am starting to see the trend in this year's Orient, as well, and want to urge readers and contributors to shy away from this path.
Pieces published in the Orient can be based on controversial and sometimes emotional subject matter. When we read an argument with which we disagree, we form an initial knee-jerk response. I am not aiming to patronize on this point; I am constantly guilty of the same initial reply. When such responses lead to a letter to the editor, it is often difficult to get beyond the knee-jerk reaction and form a piece that refrains from negatively labeling one's opponents. Furthermore, when we encounter the initial response that sends our blood pressure through the roof, more than ever, we need to make sure we understand the author's point so that letters do not exhibit misguided animosity.
The nature of the newspaper can potentially add a little fuel to the fire. Headlines often provoke a more inflammatory response than intended to attract a reader's attention. Furthermore, we are more likely to say something in print than we would in person. I thought this was a Bowdoin Orient phenomenon, but realized it was universal as I paid more attention to other newspapers' letters to the editor sections while away from college.
When responding to an opinion piece, one should take caution to discuss the piece rather than label it. Once a label such as absurd, closed-minded, ridiculous, intolerant, or preposterous is used, the intelligent discourse is finished. For example, if a letter read, "Last week's article by Joe Bowdoin was ridiculous. His intolerant reasoning was pedantic and his conclusions were just absurd..." Any further response from Joe Bowdoin's would probably read, "Actually, my argument was not ridiculous, pedantic, and absurd. It was actually coherent because I followed X, Y, Z rules of logic... Therefore, the former criticisms of my work are actually the absurd ones." Discourse on the issue is suppressed in attempt to compile the most put-downs. Once we label, the conversation is done and we are left with name-calling.
To use an actual Orient example, last year, an alumnus began a response to a piece Professor Wheelwright wrote, "People like Nat Wheelwright scare me..." That was the end of the intelligent conversation. How can one respond? Would a response beginning, "I have an admonition regarding Professor Wheelwright's article last week," not have had a better effect?
As college students, negatively labeling another's views is slightly arrogant. I am guilty of such arrogance; I think many Orient pieces are ridiculous. However, extremely intelligent people come to drastically different opinions about issues all the time. While I, and others much wiser than myself, view a position as absurd, I know others just as intelligent who think the same of what I believe.
To avoid the labeling, consider the following solution. A statement reading "I disagree with the conclusions Joe Bowdoin reached in his article last week because..." would provide a better outcome than "I find Joe Bowdoin's article absurd..." for a number of reasons. Primarily, it is more respectful, and those who initially agreed with Joe Bowdoin would be more likely to read the opposing viewpoint with an open mind than if it did begin with fighting words. Pro-choice and pro-life individuals each think the others need their heads examined. If a pro-life individual calls someone who is a pro-choice stance a "murderer," they are not going to turn around and say, "Oh, you are right! It has been genocide all along!" The labeling is not going to help. Name-calling only rallies one's own troops while alienating the opposition. Labeling closes minds; changing them requires more.
Furthermore, letters to the editor are short. Often we do not get to say everything we want. For this reason, one should choose his or her words carefully. I have witnessed people cut out some of their best points in order to end with a snappy discourtesy. Finally, Bowdoin is a small campus. I have been on both the giving and receiving end of strongly worded letters to the editor. You are going to see the person again and the interaction will be a lot less awkward if you respectfully disagree rather than insult.
For reductio ad absurdum purposes, consider an article that claims a particular ethnic group on campus is responsible for all of Bowdoin's problems because of wrongful stereotypes. Do I think such a proposition is absurd and ridiculous? Sure. However, when I choose to disagree to such a hypothesis publicly and in print, I should do so with respect and intelligent reasoning in order to refrain from labeling and have a better chance of changing the minds of those who held the opinion with which I disagree.
On a final note, we rarely encounter positive letters to the editor. This part of the opinion section has become a venue primarily for complaining and opposition. If one is in favor of an opinion, perhaps we should start showing support.