By Caroline Connick | Staff Writer
As a lifelong conservative who grew up here in Rhode Island, I often feel like a minority. I’ve found that a lot of people are under the misconceptions that conservatives, specifically Republicans, are racist and sexist elitists. I honestly don’t know where people get that idea from, because that’s not what we’re about at all. Not even close. So of course I was thrilled when I saw that the Campus Conservatives club would be holding an Honest Dialogue on Diversity panel discussion. After attending the discussion, I was blown away by how insightful and civil the dialogue was from each voice on the panel.
The event was hosted by the Director of Multicultural Programs, Sami Nassim, who opened the event by asking the audience, “this is not about us versus them, right?” I was so glad that he began the event on that note, because I’m a firm believer in one whole American community in this society as opposed to the less peaceful and less beneficial communities scattered across the nation divided by race and ethnicity that we’ve seen throughout history. People don’t like to think that we still live in these divided communities today, but when you really think about it, racial division is almost everywhere in every day life. Slurs, labels, and stereotypes continue to be very prominent in our society and all it does is divide us. All it does is create animosity and discomfort between our own people, which simply doesn’t seem logical in a country that is over two-hundred years old.
Before the discussion began, the moderator Dr. Timothy O’Neary spoke about the importance of understanding what a dialogue actually is. He showed the audience several websites with definitions of the word dialogue. The overall message of his speech was that dialogues like the one that we were about to view were about putting aside our own opinions and listening with care to the points that each other has to make, so that everyone grows in their knowledge. The panelists really stuck to this concept throughout the whole discussion.
The panelists were Salve students of all different backgrounds. Berlenise Castillo, Vice-President of the Female Empowerment Organization and the Multicultural Student Organization, participated in the panel with the hopes of sharing with the campus her experience as a student of color. Andy Cirioli, former Student Government Association President, participated in the panel because he wanted to start an open dialogue about racial issues on campus. Patty Socarras, Student Government Association president, participated in the panel because she wanted to embrace positive change. Derek French, President of the Campus Conservatives, participated in the panel because he is a firm supporter of free speech and wanted to start an open discussion on racial issues. Chris O’Keefe, a member of the Campus Conservatives, participated in the panel because he wanted open dialogue in the form of a forum to happen frequently on campus by choice of the students without needing to attend mandatory workshops.
The first question addressed by the panel was, “how do we create opportunities to bring people with opposing viewpoints together in order to have honest, respectful, and meaningful dialogues on diversity?” Cirioli and Socarras both agreed that the key to this is being open-minded, and Castillo felt that education was most important. O’Keefe thought that we needed to have conversations among ourselves, have an attitude of respect, understand that different ideas can still be good, and know that listening causes progress. French said that willingness, emotional control, and restraint from using words like “racist,” “homophobic,” and “bigot” are the most important ways to achieving these kinds of dialogues.
French’s statements that promoted voluntary dialogues on diversity as opposed to mandatory classes and workshops led Castillo to question him on why he didn’t think mandatory discussions were a good idea. French’s argument was that real conversation about these topics can’t be forced. If people don’t go into these discussions willingly, they’ll be very rigid in their opinion and “shut down” when that opinion is challenged. Castillo countered that some people might need these mandatory workshops in order to even start to develop any curiosity on this topic in the first place.
I can definitely see both points here, and I actually think that they’re both correct. Some people very well may be really stubborn (or just generally unenthused with a classroom setting) and shut down during a mandatory workshop like French said, but other people very well may need a mandatory class to point out this issue to them in order for them to even think about it at all. Maybe the most beneficial way to go about this for everyone would be to incorporate a little bit of both into educational and professional environments. Throw in a mandatory workshop here and there in order to spark some curiosity about this topic, but also offer optional open forums like this one where people can be free to discuss their honest ideas and opinions without judgement.
Socarras had a similar idea when she mentioned that people need to feel comfortable having conversations about what for many people is a very touchy subject and they should have the opportunity to go to classes where they can learn to understand both sides of the issue. French expressed some concern that a mandatory class could be one-sided, which I could definitely see as a potential problem. I believe that the smartest way of getting around that obstacle would be for administration to train instructors to encourage free dialogue from all sides, like what was done in this forum.
The next question posed for the panelists was, “how do we have honest dialogues on diversity while at the same time preserving free speech and avoiding hate speech?” I personally felt that Cirioli was spot on in his answer. He said that if someone says something offensive out of ignorance, (because a lot of people do) one should correct that person out of desire to help them grow. He said that in doing this, people shouldn’t put labels on others because that doesn’t make any change. I was so glad that he said this because I feel like we live in a very judgmental society that has very negative and hurtful labels for people on both sides of this issue and tends to throw them around like confetti. People are very sensitive and defensive when it comes to this issue which is a big problem, because it causes a conversation that could be very civil and constructive to turn into a fight where absolutely nothing but further division between people is created.
The third question of the evening was the one that sparked some slightly heated interactions between the panelists, “what does creating an inclusive campus mean to you?” French answered first by addressing the topic of Affirmative Action. He said that diversity is a very good thing, but it needs to happen naturally and Affirmative Action is unfair to qualified people who do not get into certain schools or job positions because a racial quota has already been met.
This seemed to have struck a nerve in both Castillo and Socarras. Socarras immediately responded by saying that she isn’t attending Salve Regina University because of Affirmative Action. She made the point that, although she earned her place here on her own merit, Affirmative Action is still necessary because when it was created there were disproportionate advantages for certain people, and Affirmative Action continues to level the playing field. Castillo also stated that she got into college based on her G.P.A.
French quickly clarified his original statement and said that he wasn’t trying to say that anyone shouldn’t be in this university, but that there are cases in which Affirmative Action is a disadvantage to qualified people who don’t get what they deserve because of racial quotas. I found certain points from both sides of this discussion valid, and I felt that O’Keefe added some voice of reason by saying that Affirmative Action is good because people in low socioeconomic areas with underfunded schools are at a disadvantage and should be given chances at creating a better life for themselves equal to their wealthier counterparts, but there are several different races living in poverty.
Perhaps there is some kind of happy medium that can cater to everyone’s needs possible in this case as well. Maybe it would be a good idea now that racial segregation has become less acceptable than it was in the 1960s to base Affirmative Action off of socioeconomic status instead of race. Also, we could do away with racial quotas and make Affirmative Action a more case-by-case program that ensures that underprivileged people who can do just as well as their more privileged counterparts have the same opportunities to improve their lives. This would make it so that people of all backgrounds had equal chances in life without fear of being turned away because of their race.
In the midst of discussion, many more positive ideas were shared. Socarras wanted everyone to know that just because someone may not be of color doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to talk about diversity issues. In fact, people of color want to talk to other races about their experiences. Cirioli really redeemed himself after the controversial ending of his SGA career by sharing with the audience how much he grew as a person learned about the importance of diversity and respect through that experience. Overall, no matter how strongly people disagreed, everyone was exceptionally civil and the learning environment of that panel discussion was beyond compare.
That same night, there was a Republican Presidential Debate where this election’s crop of candidates continued to disgrace the name “conservative,” and I was honestly so glad that I attended the panel discussion instead of watching it. By the end of the event, I felt enlightened. I looked around at the crowded lecture hall as people went up to the panelists to talk to them, shake hands with them, and even hug them. It was a beautiful scene, and it was what all dialogues on political or social issues should look like whether it’s happening in a classroom or at a lunch table in Miley.
