Inclusive democracy is the engine of progress

Abigail Hogan in his article titled, “Discourse Is Democracy: Allowing Uncensored Speech on College Campuses" argues that a college is a place of growth, and for the development of political issues in the real world, the students in college need to engage in open and informed debates. The growing practice of blocking speakers with different political opinions is taking away the opportunity of listening to opposing ideas and engage in informed conversations. Protests by college students are a catalyst of democracy and progress but blocking speakers from colleges is a disservice to democracy. The stop on blocking speakers will benefit both students and future political discourse. 

I have an algorithmic approach to reviewing a piece of opinion that I have refined over the years. The algorithm is borrowed from the title of the famous Western movie by name of, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”. Any part of an opinion that is based on facts or can be backed by facts is the good part. The parts that are based on gray areas or not conclusive data are a terrible part of the argument. The part that is based on prejudices, or can’t be backed by concrete evidence is the ugly part of the opinion. 

Armed with an algorithm that I have defined in the previous paragraph, the good part about the opinion piece is the reference to the “Foundation for Individual Rights in Education” and the numbers of incidences that shows an increase in the practice students attempt to prevent public figures from speaking at colleges. Another good part of the article is the definitions of the protests and also political discourse with references to historical events such as Gandhi’s salt march, and the American Civil Rights movements, as well as the current polarization of the political environment. This distinction serves well in favor of the argument as it points to the fact that protests during the American Civil Rights movements had a healing effect on American society and political discourse in general, and in comparison, the college protests will deepen the political polarization by creating echo chambers, and therefore, it is interests of students to allow a wide range of opinions in the colleges. 

Image generated by Bing image generator 

Now, the bad part of the article is omitting the long history of marginalization as well as polarization. The article gives references to public figures and popular political movements. See, right there lies the problem that consequently shows itself in the form of political polarization and intolerance in the form of student protests. Let me explain. Public figures have had long careers and well-known political discourses that are known to the public, and it is hard to not hear them given the interests of newspapers, magazines, television, and social media about their lives, careers, and opinions. Allowing them to speak at colleges or not allowing them at colleges both serve them well as both events advertise their well-known opinions. An interesting exercise would be to bring these public figures to colleges and let them listen to students coming from marginalized backgrounds. The colleges and other students can help these students to refine their opinions and be able to present their thoughts and experiences. OR, alternatively, colleges can invite opinionated individuals from marginalized communities, and let public figures and other students listen to them. This practice serves well both democracy and political discourse. 

Now comes the ugly part of the article, and that’s jumping to the conclusion that “if we fail to listen or we turn our back to the opposition instead of arguing and engaging, then we have already lost” without providing a clear picture of how to engage and argue with opposition, who is the opposition and what we will lose by not engaging? Let me elaborate a bit. Students who come to college might not have had the levels of exposure to the pressing political issues, haven’t had the opportunities to speak their minds, learn to express themselves in proper manners, and even more importantly have more pressing personal issues that do not permit them to ponder political issues. Do the students who protest to the speaker represent all students or they have had exposure to political debates all their lives, and college is just one of many platforms available to them? Because of their vast exposure, they might not miss or lose anything. In the case of political discourse, they might be deep in dialogues or engaging fiercely on social media or political meetings, or other platforms. Even with casual surfing of the internet, newspapers, mainstream media, books, and journals published, we find a small intellectual class dominating the political discourse everywhere. Considering the dominant voices, allowing or blocking public figures in colleges does not change the outcomes of current political polarization or does not add any benefits to the students. There is a need for debate on the transparency of algorithms used for show web searches, enabling students to express themselves, publications, the way public figures are made, and selection of the speakers in order for marginalized voices to be heard, and engaging and inclusive debates to become possible. 

Any quick read of developmental psychology [1], makes it obvious that children's mental development is heavily influenced by their environments. A decade or two ago, it was mainstream media and Ivy schools that dominated the narrative spheres and influenced the mind development of most of the students. Then, the internet came and there were hopes for a more open and engaging environment where voices on the fringes could also be heard. Now, there are a few companies that dominate web searches, and their algorithms [2] bury the fringe voices deep enough to make them voiceless again. In fact, the internet has become an echo chamber, as once was mainstream media. Growing up in such an environment where voices on the fringes are discouraged (maybe unintentionally or purely on business needs or political needs), talking about the progress of political discourse or benefits of students just by allowing or blocking a public speaker on college campuses is misleading or doesn’t change the current environment. Every new invention, technology, or policy brings some hope but without guardrails, the mainstream becomes mainstream, and the voices on the fringes remain on the fringes. I have named this argumentative and response essay, “Inclusive Democracy is the Engine of Progress” which summarizes my response to Abigail’s article. 

References

1. Wikipedia contributors. (2023, February 10). Developmental psychology. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

2. Weapons of math destruction how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy, O'Neil - Broadway Books - 2017