Brown has recently started an initiative called “Transformative Conversations.” The program aims to “provide opportunities and spaces to engage respectfully and thoughtfully across our differences." These conversations, however, will have a minimal effect on campus discourse at Brown, contradict the notion of an education and imply that Brown is not a place where freedom of speech and thought are respected in other venues.
The idea of providing a space for these conversations, which University Chaplain Janet Cooper Nelson describes as “a big wooden spoon in the pot of (Brown),” implies that there is a fundamental divergence in the ideas between Brown students and faculty members. This divergence at the University is essentially two-fold, though views are between left-wing and even more left-wing. Currently, at Brown and across the United States, there is a problem of intellectual homogeneity, with a near-consensus in thought among academics. Of all the campaign donations made by Ivy League faculty members in the 2012 presidential campaign, 96 percent went to President Obama’s re-election campaign. The problem runs much deeper at Brown, however, and is reflective of a fundamental problem occurring in the classroom.
What is the purpose of the classroom if there cannot be transformational conversations within its walls? The entire goal of seeking an education is to learn, gain exposure to the marketplace of ideas, become a better human and apply that in some way of your own choosing in a free society. The implication of entitling the venue for these conversations as a “safe space” for ideas to be challenged, presented and argued implies that this doesn’t exist elsewhere on campus. In essence, everywhere should be safe for rigorous debate.
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to the notion of having discussions with community involvement, seminars or any other forum of conversation. Part of the reason why Brown is such a great school is that we have phenomenal external guest speakers and seminars. In fact, I have had some of the most fascinating discussions in these type of forums. Yet the fact that the administration feels compelled to host a series of conversations it proclaims are transformational is an admission that the classroom may not be fulfilling its purpose.
Getting an education means examining different ideas, exploring the inner workings of your values and trying to uncover who you are, what you believe and what you ultimately stand for. While it is almost impossible to fulfill this ideal, the classroom is meant to at least achieve the first part of the definition — exploring and questioning your values. Therefore, if class is no longer a place where education serves as one’s entry into the marketplace of ideas, education ceases to serve its primary purpose. Even if this is not entirely true, the creation of these “transformative conversations” means the administration does not think the classes they provide are doing their job in full. In the Herald article, one administrator describes “Transformative Conversations” as a place where “people come from all kinds of backgrounds” and try to “truly understand another’s perspective and learn from that perspective.”
This is a startling admission.
The need to create a space where people can feel safe to “truly understand another’s perspective” means that this wasn’t happening previously. It implies that the administration feels students are incapable of having adult debates in many of the forums that exist on campus for conversation or that the “transformative conversations” require the administration’s definition of a “safe space.”
The creation of “transformative conversations” suggests that there isn’t a safe space where freedom of speech on issues is respected. This is a sentiment felt by many people considered outside of normal political thought at the University. For instance, on Wednesday, I attended a meeting of the Brown Spectator — a small group of individuals who actually proclaim in writing that they are right-wing. One first-year, after only a few weeks at Brown, articulated her frustration that in many arguments she was told to “check her privilege” because she did not share the majoritarian attitude. Though her comment may have conformed to the notion of privilege, to ignore someone’s argument with three words is unacceptable. We owe it to each other to address arguments directly and respectfully. We shouldn’t have to create “safe spaces” as a place where that type of discourse is the only one in existence.
This opportunity for more political discussion on campus should be an eternal quest of the University. Consequently, I believe that the program will be beneficial in some ways vis-a-vis the content that will be disseminated. The implications of the title “Transformative Conversations” and the comments by administrators in the Herald article, however, are scary. They subvert the notion of education, admit a lack of freedom of speech that may exist on campus and underscore the underlying problem of minimal ideological diversity that plagues elite institutions nationwide.
Hopefully, students’ incentives for entering the marketplace of ideas will not require the “transformative conversations” that the administration is selling. Perhaps ensuring that our classrooms and campus are a “safe space” would lead to the “transformative conversations” the administration hopes to create. The education we pay so much for should grant us the will to say what we think without the need for a defined “safe space” and allow us to feel welcome to do so anywhere.
Call me, beep me, if you wanna reach me: graham_rotenberg@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
