“This is college; it is okay if you disagree,” my professor said inquisitively, prompting a long, awkward pause from the thirty students sitting in front of her.
Smith College has long held a reputation for being a center of left-leaning, radical activist students. So much so that it seems we have decided that if we identify with this label, we must all share the same points of view and agree with one another and even more so, not engage in discussions that challenge this consensus.
This is an observation I have made frequently during my second year at this school. Whether discussing a current event with friends or responding to questions in class, I find that we default to agreement to avoid potentially uncomfortable conversations and moments for critical thinking. We don’t even give ourselves a chance to reflect on our views or inquire about differing perspectives because we are so used to our echo chamber of similar beliefs, assuming the next person thinks the same.
What confuses me about this is that, as individuals, we are bound to have varied understandings of the world around us and, therefore, disagree. While there might not be widespread disagreement on topics relating to human rights, our different lived experiences will lead us to have distinct approaches and outlooks on everything we encounter. Whether it’s religion, race, ethnicity, gender or class, the dimensions of our identities shape how we perceive our lives and education.
I find that recognizing and acknowledging differences is fundamental to dissecting and understanding my values. The most enlightening conversations I have had have always involved discussing differing opinions and understanding someone else’s perspective to reflect on my own and find common ground. Avoiding disagreement — nodding our heads in approval and allowing for silence when asked for our opinions — does not strengthen or confirm our activism; it only allows us to evade the hard work of analyzing our own views, questioning others’, and discussing them together.
Activist and Study of Women and Gender professor Loretta Ross has written on the concept of “calling in” versus “calling out.” In her TED Talk about the Calling In Movement, she describes it as a “tool and practice for turning difficult conversations into productive ones.” Ross describes this framework as a way to “help address harm while creating space for growth, forgiveness, and understanding.”
I am not an expert on this subject by any means. I write this because I often find myself silently nodding in agreement in class, not offering alternative viewpoints or simply echoing what my friends mention in casual conversation. I have realized that the bubble of a labeled leftist environment does not always provoke the kind of critical thinking I initially assumed it would.
We learn how to have important conversations about “controversial” topics and study extensive material on these issues, but it seems we often fail to implement these skills in our daily lives. What is the point of knowledge if we do not put our thoughts into action?
I am grateful to live in an environment where students strive for collective understanding, but I believe that disagreeing is not the root of tension; rather, it’s the pretense that we all think alike, and that no harm exists on this campus. I find that I am not exercising the necessary skill of finding common ground, learning from perspectives outside of the echo chamber, and calling in over calling out. The silence that follows when my professor asks about disagreement suggests that many of us are not challenging ourselves to step out of the echoes either.
Be First to Comment