Agree with their agenda or not, the Bowdoin College Republicans have driven campus politics this year. The events sponsored by the College Republicans have been the talk of campus all year long. Never before has a single group taken control of campus politics so much?well, since the endless, mind-numbing "Diversity Discussions" last year. As opposed to last year, the debates spurred by the Republicans have been constructive.
Since the College Republicans have turned up the heat, liberals on campus have been on their heels. Most of their agenda has been responding to the actions of the Republicans. To their credit, they have put up quite a fight. Every week, we have a couple of angry letters to the editor in the Orient. Protests and boycotts have been organized.
Intrigued by this energy and enthusiasm, I decided to dig a little deeper into the thought process of these so-called "liberals" I so casually dismiss in my column each week. After months of research with Navajo code breakers, I have discovered the secret to the angry liberal reaction. I found that they are all been centered on three key words.
The biggest weapons in the liberal arsenal are the words "insensitive," "offensive," and "disrespectful." Do not bother to look them up in your trusty dictionary. Their definitions have mutated due to long-term exposure to high levels of PC toxins. In academia, they all mean the same thing, "Something that I do not agree with at all, so much that it makes me hopping mad and irrational." If something is "offensive," "insensitive," or "disrespectful," there is no point in listening to it.
I will demonstrate the use of these words in the form of a hypothetical letter to the editor here at the Orient. Let this be a lesson to the young and angry?if you disagree with something conservative, and you want to rally your troops...I mean peace protesters/limousine liberal buddies ...here's what you write:
"I attended the extremely offensive lecture by Conservative A. I just want to make it clear that my organization completely disapproves of what he/she said. It was horribly insensitive to Oppressed Minority Group A. It was also unbelievably disrespectful to the hard work of Oppressed Minority Group B."
Notice there is no mention of facts or figures. Instead, these key words have been applied liberally and garnished with spicy adverbs. There is no attempt to make an argument, or disprove the speaker. That will not be necessary. It has everything you need. However, you need to end with a bang. Attack the Republicans!
"The lecture by Conservative A demonstrates, once again, how disrespectful the Republicans are to everything that is good and decent in this world."
Your job is done. You have successfully completed a substance-free attack. Take a nap. Wait for something else to offend you.
Now, this reaction to "offensive" ideas is not limited to letters to the editor, or one side of the political spectrum. Whoever does it, and wherever they do it, they are strangling our political discourse.
Accusing someone of being insensitive, disrespectful, or offensive is completely meaningless in an academic debate. No matter how offensive the argument is, it will stand until you disprove it. No matter what you call it, it is still sitting there unscathed. Calling people names deadens our political discourse. Making actual arguments gives it life.
I worry that students at Bowdoin have learned to get offended first, respond immediately and vehemently, and learn nothing. It may be natural for undergraduates to respond this way. However, I know Bowdoin can do better.
We need to drop these silly accusations, do our research, and make intelligent arguments. Most of all, we need to lighten up! We are in college. We do not need to be outraged all the time. We should spend time learning rather than fuming. Relax, listen, and add something to the intellectual pot. Don't just stir it.