Unlocking the forum’s benefits

Much has been written about the Safe Space forum that took place a week and a half ago, but I am writing to shed some light on some overlooked aspects of the campus episode. The fliers, which precipitated the forum, have been praised, lambasted, dissected, critiqued, and eviscerated on Spectator’s opinion pages, not to mention the furious responses to the forum itself and the various scandals and controversies that it brought about.

At the forum, irritation and offense were palpable. There were tears—both of welled-up anger and of long-festering pain. Generalizations flew both ways, from the panelists to the audience and right back to the stage. I would like to draw some attention to the fact that amidst the furor, there were moments of constructive dialogue—a few fringe benefits to the ordeal.

I have to admit, I grimaced at points. There was a lot of treading on people’s toes from both sides of the arguments, though not out of malicious intent. Rather, the offense frequently arose from a very apparent gap between the deep philosophical and academic backgrounds of the two general populations. Words and phrases fraught with meaning to some people were used as simple, face-value words by others—a recipe for conflict. Whether through a legitimate ignorance of history or an informed difference in belief, it was not just a discussion about a single topic, but rather a meeting of two very different schools of thought. It is only natural that sparks flew and a rabble was roused.

However, despite the general acidity of the events leading up to the forum and even the forum itself, I came away from the evening having experienced two very valuable fringe benefits to this particular episode of Columbia life. They speak to the underlying character of the type of student who gains admittance to this incredible institution.

The first fringe benefit occurred two days before the forum at a very late night meeting in an EC townhouse. Assembled in the living room was what could be called a hodge-podge of campus life representatives—board members from the CU Republicans, CU Democrats, Black Students Organization, Columbia Queer Alliance, and Everyone Allied Against Homophobia. As the director of Intergroup Affairs for the Republicans, I had the honor of participating. Sitting shuffled up and in a circle, the dozen or so students got down to business. At the table were several people who felt offended or attacked by the actions of another group—it was not a political or abstract concept that was in question, but rather people’s emotions and work that were on the line.

There were plenty of good reasons for the meeting to quickly collapse into listing grievances, pointing fingers, and spewing vitriol. Quite the opposite happened instead. The students—our peers—approached the situation with respect, restraint, and a desire to create something positive out of the grim circumstances. With the ensuing conversation, the members of the group worked together to facilitate a dialogue on this topic. Putting their differences behind them, they rallied under the common goal of contributing to a campus conversation. For the next hour, they ironed out various details and collaborated on an event predicated on goodwill. Of course, there were moments of tension as would appear in any discussion between very differently-minded people, but such instances never failed to take a back seat to more productive interaction.

The second fringe benefit surfaced after the official forum ended. Though the lecture hall-style room limited mobility, the completion of the panel discussion induced a splintering of the audience into small, informal discussion groups. Clusters of five to seven students continued the turbulent discussion that the forum had begun. More remarkable than their simple desire to continue talking was the fact that many of the groups extending the conversation were composed of students with divergent opinions on the issues. Rather than settling for a spectacle, the attendees took the topic into their own hands and invited other opinions into the conversation. When I witnessed that, I knew that the forum had not simply emphasized a division, but rather spurred quality dialogue.

While these two benefits may not have redeemed the entire saga, they were certainly redemptive. They remind us that despite areas of substantial disagreement, we can interact with a deep-seated sense of courtesy. Having established that foundational respect, we can intellectually engage each other over controversy rather than react with unfettered, knee-jerk emotion. As we encounter future areas of contention, we should focus on revealing these attractive characteristics in more circumstances and with less provocation. We will all be better off because of it.

Derek Turner is a Columbia College junior majoring in anthropology and political science. Opening Remarks runs alternate Mondays.