what are we in last fall I went to San
Francisco with a friend at the end of
the day she turned to me instead Wow
today has been just such a mentally
engaging conversation I feel like I
never talked like this with any of my
other friends that day we didn’t talk
about anything monumental no deep dark
secrets were spilled we simply talked
about life without the world around us
we asked questions and more questions
unrestricted by the norms that tend to
dictate our social conversations our
society has built a go-to box of
conversation starters for small talk
from the weather to our weekend plans we
compartmentalize things and impress them
off sure surface level questions
establish compatibility the only genuine
organic conversations can build trust
too many times have I witnessed the
ballin situation in class we have an
intriguing riveting lively discussion
people ask insightful questions and
speak with passion and conviction and
yet the moment we step out of class a
switch flips and we revert to our
everyday social jargon we are floated
for our intellectual curiosity outside
of the classroom our static calculated
conversations consequently inhibit the
growth of our personal relationships a
study from the University of Missouri
reports that we spend about 70 to 80
percent of our waking hours engaged in
some form of communication where could
that be reading writing speaking or
listening so here you can see the
communication by definition is
reciprocal it’s a two-way street or at
least it’s supposed to be and yet in the
last decade America is seeing two
interconnected problems as shown by the
data from the Pew Research Center our
society is becoming increasingly
polarized as more and more Americans
lean toward extreme ideologies and do
not identify as moderates this polarity
has created and divided in our political
discourse in-person and online and it’s
post
into opposite corners of a wrestling
match that never ends in light of such a
contentious and divisive presidential
election The Wall Street Journal
published an online interactive graphic
called blue feed red feet Facebook
scientists scientists follow the
activity of more than of millions of
social media users and found that we
almost exclusively like comment and
share posts that align with our own
political views this is not unexpected
we like people that agree with us and
the predictability of this research is
the exact reason why changing our
political discourse is necessary we
cannot keep using social media or any
public forum as a portal into a
unilateral defection where ideas are
simply bluer and around in a bubble so
if we spend all of this time
communicating why are they stuck in
lackluster conversations why are we
stuck in echo chambers understandably
there is a natural sense of
vulnerability and fragility that comes
with any more personal or political
conversation but perhaps one reason why
we are hesitant to engage in
intellectual conversations is the
prevalence of censorship and a stigma of
political correctness across our country
there has been an ongoing heated debate
about intellectual States faces trigger
warnings and free speech and college
campuses like the University of Chicago
our own school community community
recently made national news when the
history teacher Frank Navarro was placed
on administrative
leave in the interest of the emotional
safety of the students outrage social
media statuses campus protests op-eds
even our own school board meetings
reveals an undeniable fracture in the
web between administration faculty and
students at many institutions nationwide
so this dilemma begs another question
how do we filter ideas and decide what
is taboo or not how do we address
intellectual diversity and academic
freedom how do we define the parameters
of our conversations if at all as
individual speakers and thinkers it is
important that we establish a balance
between our personal advocacy and our
respect for other perspectives and as
listeners and a collective society we
should refrain from stepping into the
quicksand of political correctness and
hyper sensitivity understanding and
embracing this duality of intellectual
communication is the catalyst for
productive meaningful discourse and
deeper mutual relationships in
philosophy in illogical ISM is often
considered synonymous to rationalism yet
with the rhetoric that people employ
today it is unrealistic to be is
exclusively rational one way that we can
incorporate emotion into our discourse
is through empathy we are so lucky to
live in a country where the fundamental
laws like the First Amendment allow us
to speak our minds and so we should take
advantage of that without renouncing the
rights of others so what does this look
like I have a few steps toward reshaping
our lens on both sides of intellectual
communication the three e’s number one
expose we need to ask questions get
informed
do our research visit websites authors
and publications that we normally
wouldn’t we can’t be afraid to put our
ideas out there but when we do present
them it is impaired
that we do not begin with the other side
is wrong and here’s why then what’s the
point of even sharing by assuming that
our idea or opinion is definitely
superior or absolutely right we reject
any prospect of collaborative open
discussion and we inhibit actual
progress and productivity number to
engage in order to truly achieve our
desired goals and objectives we need to
engage and actually listen there’s a
common phrase that goes something like
listening is not just waiting for your
turn to speak
this completely rings true in any type
of conversation social intellectual
political engagement requires respect
and when it comes to language there is a
fine line between consciousness of
vocabulary and nitpicking rhetoric for
every possible offense shutting down
scolding or slandering someone forum is
speaking with the broad blanket
reasoning of political correctness often
implies a superiority complex rather we
should ask for clarification and then
transition into an open composed
explanation of our viewpoints but there
is also a fine line between feeling
uncomfortable and unsafe which brings me
to my final point and because honestly
up until this past election I never
fully understood sectionalism we have
learned about it in history class but my
naive mind was always lost at the idea
that people would not want to be unified
as what nation it was only until a
recent spontaneous trip through rural
California would I begin to witness how
shockingly different the lifestyles and
values are in each pocket of our nation
and then I could empathize with other to
his daily lives and see how that shapes
their political views and social norms
it was slightly uncomfortable but it was
also I open it by empathizing
others we can understand why certain
words might make them feel unsafe where
is the caring serious weight and tragic
history to truly create an effective
solution or to build a deeper
relationship or to simply gain a greater
understanding we have to put ourselves
in other people’s positions I don’t have
all of the answers toward healing the
greater divide that separates our
country our ideological differences are
often intertwined along threads like
race and socioeconomic and I acknowledge
that this is not a perfect formula for
revitalizing our relationships but I do
know that the way we are going to reach
progress depth and unity is through
discourse even if we cannot or it is
difficult to combat the
institutionalized oppression and voices
we can start with ourselves on the
smaller scale of our everyday lives
our eternal willingness to listen is a
crucial stepping-stone in the right
direction it is our responsibility as
constructors of the future to boldly do’
to foster an environment the conduct
ideas rather than influenza one of my
favorite authors James Baldwin wrote in
his book notes of a native son it is
really quite impossible to be
affirmative about anything one refused
to question so I challenge you to
question and to be genuinely open to hearing and answer thank you