Agree to disagree

If there is one thing I was sure of as I was pulling up to 116th & Broadway on Aug. 28, it was that the next four years would be congested with a myriad of political altercations, philosophical dialogues, drawn out discussions and heated debates. I was salivating with the knowledge that my fellow undergraduates would be more than eager to lay out their thoughts, unafraid to employ their argumentative capabilities to their fullest. I have not been disappointed—these last two months have indeed been marked by frequent hour-long conversations, which, unfortunately, have been responsible for the appearance of dark circles around my weary eyes.

However, when I truly reflect upon the actual “constructiveness” of these discussions, I find that I really have little to rejoice over. Nearly all of the talks I’ve held either have served absolutely no purpose, simply reinforcing already-ingrained opinions in an act of mutual mental masturbation, or have unsatisfactorily been resolved with the god-awful phrase, “we’ll agree to disagree.” This repeated pattern has led me to question whether Columbians, including myself, really put themselves out there to teach and learn from others. More and more, it seems to me that we ultimately speak with our classmates simply to hear our own voices, only giving the illusion of properly listening to differing arguments out of courtesy.

Perhaps certain moral foundations exist within us that are absolutely unshakeable, which render futile a great number of conversations. However, I find that the real obstruction to fruitful discussion is a very well developed arrogance that is easily found in the student body. Frankly, we often hold ourselves to an unreasonably high pedestal simply because we attend this institution, as if that fact alone made us incontestable masterminds. Instead of approaching challenges to our views with the aim of elucidating the truth, we fight to one-sidedly defend our propositions because we consider them extensions of our pride. To put it bluntly, Columbians find it impossibly difficult to admit to their peers and to themselves that they can be (and most often are) utterly wrong. Nothing appears to be tougher to swallow than muttering the words, “I am mistaken.” I myself admit to being guilty, on several occasions, of assuming this inflamed sense of pride. In fact, this article was inspired by the comments of my close friend, who rightfully reproached me for believing to have “figured out” the world in its entirety. To him, I am eternally grateful.

Why should acknowledging ignorance be such an unbearable task? What has cultivated this noxious environment of one-upmanship? I’ve witnessed students who, when confronted with contrary evidence, immediately claim it—rather than their own position—to be suspect (another act which I am guilty of perpetrating). Others reject postulates from colleagues but gleefully swallow them up when they come from the mouth of a professor or a talk-show host. Still others choose to blatantly ignore any responses posited against them, while continuing to preach the same unmodified ideas. By believing that we are viewed as weak or lesser by conceding to our fellows, we destroy the constructive nature of discussion that should define our experience as students. If we attend this university to learn, to be shown alternatives, etc., we cannot expect to grow if we continue to hold our preconceived notions as fundamentally correct. When Columbians seriously engage each other in discussion, whether in class or in an informal setting, they need to accept the fact that the notions they hold dearest may finally be proven insufficient, incomplete, or incorrect.

I don’t mean to take this formulation to its extreme. I am not implying that we shouldn’t attempt to defend our stances when we can back them up properly. However, it does ask us to be aware of the distinction between being skeptical and being completely intransigent. It asks us to put aside our pride and recognize that we are fallible, imperfect people. It asks us to really listen to others and investigate the opposing side, instead of offering polite remarks. Only then can the discussions I dreamed of on my way to Columbia really become constructive.

The author is a Columbia College first-year. He is a member of Youth for Debate, the International Socialist Organization, and the New York Fencers Club.