In last week’s edition of The Choate News, I wrote an article that advocated better public speaking on campus. I lamented that Choate students prefer unhealthy discord to meaningful conversation. Two days before the publication of my article, Andrea Espinosa ’17 gave a thought-provoking Choate Talk in which she contended that our campus’s issue lies in an alleged “oppression” of conservatives and their viewpoints that is symptomatic of a “liberal revolution.” I agree with Espinosa in that Choate could benefit from increased communication between liberals and conservatives; however, Espinosa’s explanation of the issue centered around several appealing but unfounded assumptions.
In describing the hostility conservatives face at Choate, Espinosa claimed that Choate was “losing its values” through a “liberal revolution.” The way in which Espinosa and other conservatives have pushed this narrative might seem convincing to a passive observer; however, the description of a radical progressive movement at Choate is a case in point of the straw-man logic fallacy. Espinosa and others have created a false, convenient narrative in which conservatives can claim to be “oppressed.” In actuality, these “liberal” topics of discussion — such as sexual assault, hookup culture, gender, and identity, around which many school events have centered — are not liberal topics at all. They are bipartisan issues that must be openly discussed to foster a safe, understanding, and compassionate community. Our school prioritizes discussion about marginalized identities like women, people of color, and LGBTQ people not to achieve an agenda, but to ensure the wellbeing of Choate students with these identities. Conversations like those about consent have grown out of legitimate concerns over unhealthy, dangerous sexual interactions among students. If the administration ignores these serious threats to students’ mental and physical wellbeing, the school would be failing to live up to its commitment to create a safe environment for all of its students. Yet Espinosa and others have essentially labelled these efforts as liberal tyranny, despite the fact that they too would expect the same care and attention from the administration if an issue affected their safety. The notion that our school should attempt to address “taboo” and prevalent issues like racism or sexual assault is neither conservative nor liberal — it’s simply the right thing to do.
After claiming the existence of a liberal revolution, Espinosa describes a “culture of hypocrisy” at Choate that also contributes to conservative “oppression”: that liberals will always tout the benefits of open-mindedness but will never be open-minded to conservative opinions themselves. Her argument mirrors the speeches and writings of many conservatives on campuses at Choate and beyond. Despite its recurrence, this argument rests on shoddy foundations. First, this reasoning relies on the assumption that people deserve recognition or applause for their opinions, no matter what those opinions are. Espinosa cites an instance of “liberal hypocrisy” where some Choate students refused to give a standing ovation to a speaker who claimed the culture on campus suppressed conservativism. Examples like these, in which conservatives don’t receive commendation, do not illustrate oppression. While conservatives reserve the right to express their opinions however they wish, including at school meetings, applause must be earned. That conservatives have felt compelled to give ovations for performances that they disagreed with only reflects on themselves. Furthermore, I would assume that if conservatives truly intend to create discussion, they would be glad that people react to their opinions honestly, rather than force empty appreciation.
Another flaw in the “hypocrisy” argument is its assertion that only conservative opinions receive harsh feedback on campus. My recent article about cultural appropriation resulted in backlash ranging from unprovoked taunting to physical desecration of the piece. I’m sure this treatment resembles, if not exceeds, the response to certain conservative opinions, which Espinosa claims are “not only disregarded, but completely unaccepted.” The unfortunate truth is that regardless of political orientation, one incurs personal attacks when one voices an opinion that others disagree with. This is why those who have struggled personally with their identity react viscerally when conservatives voice opinions about issues like gender, sexuality, and race. Similarly, liberals who touch on issues such as problematic sports events will receive the same sort of response from those who are avid sports fans.
Another issue I found with Espinosa’s speech was her condemnation of liberals for their “hypersensitivity.” Espinosa and others have been astonished to find that liberals will “go as far as [accusing one] of purposely trying to offend people” with their conservative opinion. Espinosa’s claims that these liberals are “ridiculous and immature” for feeling upset. The issue is that this line of reasoning advocates a decrease in meaningful conversation, not an increase. If students opted to remain silent after feeling genuinely disrespected or marginalized, unspoken resentment would pervade our campus. By lamenting that conservatives cannot “eat a meal in peace” without someone being offended by their words, Espinosa seems to idealize a world where fewer discussions occur and more awkward lunch tables exist. She also seems to forget that finding it’s not okay to offend someone can be a learning experience through which one becomes a more respectful member of a community. At Choate, we learn to interact with students from diverse backgrounds by becoming aware of our offensive and exclusive actions. I suggest that conservatives take note of the reactions they receive around campus and think carefully about what it could mean about their behaviors.
Most members of our community and I agree that we all should contend with one another in a healthier and more productive fashion. However, splitting this issue along ideological lines creates more division and impedes the good dialogue for which we all hope. We all should reflect on our recent conversations and determine whether they have been as fruitful as we would have hoped. I suspect that very few of us could claim to be perfect.
