Through dialogue, we gain a better understanding of the world and the beings in it. To engage in dialogue is to engage in a life-sustaining practice wherein love sprouts, paradigms shift, and transformation occurs. Dialogue is at the heart of a loving community, and we must listen intently to its message to establish one here at Columbia.
It is important to distinguish between dialogue and debate. Debate is a frequent occurrence on this campus, but dialogue rarely happens. In classrooms and in private conversations about many of the hot topics on campus, the focus is often on getting one’s point across, on proving the other person wrong. Essentially, the focus is on domination. In debate, there is passion, but no compassion. There is knowledge, but no understanding. Dialogue is about listening, seeking truth, and returning to the drawing board if need be.
The difference between dialogue and debate is readily evident in the Columbia classroom. There, silencing is the primary barrier to dialogue. I remember telling my CC professor how discouraged I was by reading text after text by white males who positioned their own particular understanding of the world as the universal human experience, as ultimate truth. I expressed that, in some ways, they were all the same. He called me “intellectually lazy” and quickly moved on to what he saw as more important matters, like listening and responding constructively to more docile students (who just so happened to be white). I felt silenced. I never had the courage to speak in that class again.
I needed a break from Columbia, so I spent last fall at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Reflecting on my experience there, I came to the conclusion that people say some stupid shit in the classroom. Accustomed to the semblance of intellectual rigor at Columbia, it was a shock to sit in classrooms at Howard and hear students speak off-topic, use words incorrectly, and fumble through their arguments.
Looking more deeply into this elitist sentiment, I made a discovery: perhaps Howard has been able to achieve something that Columbia has not—that is, to create an environment of openness where students can speak freely without the fear of shame or humiliation.
That is not to say that intellectual rigor must be sacrificed to create such an environment. Can we imagine a classroom where we touch the peaks of our intellects and come closer to our self-actualization—to full humanity—at the same time? How many of us would speak less eloquently if we truly spoke from the heart? How many of us walk into classrooms ready to dominate (or to engage in “intellectual combat” as a Harvard buddy of mine would say) and by our very attitude and tone silence others before they even have the opportunity to speak? My point is that to build a loving community with dialogue and radical openness at the center requires rethinking the atmosphere we create in classrooms to make it more inclusive and establishing a space where folks can come to voice and realize their intellectual potential.
To build a loving community based upon care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect, and trust, we must work to create spaces where true, critical dialogue can occur. This is something to which the campus group ROOTed (Respecting Ourselves and Others Through Education) is already committed. By hosting critical dialogues on Monday nights in the Intercultural Resource Center of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, the group members represent a much-needed shift on this campus from the contention of debate to the mindfulness of dialogue. ROOTed begins every discussion with the establishment of “ground rules.” These rules (or principles) are established in order to allow an organic discussion to take place, one that is created and shaped by the participants. Also, ROOTed peer facilitators create the environment in which critical dialogue can occur by looking deeply within themselves and interrogating their own tone, conduct, and vocabulary. Imagine the transformative impact adopting such practices in classrooms would have on our learning experience.
But we should not stop at just imagining such a transformation in the classroom. In fact, such a transformation is already occurring on the margins of the academy. Educators committed to critical pedagogy (a field developed primarily by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, wherein the goal of education is liberation) abound in women’s studies classrooms, for instance. We should work to build coalitions with these educators to further their efforts to eliminate forms of domination in the classroom. We should boycott classrooms where (some) students’ voices are devalued. A practical first step is to meet with our teachers individually and ask them about their pedagogical approach and their thoughts on the importance of dialogue. If hundreds of students begin thinking and speaking critically about the need for dialogue on campus, particularly in the classroom, the climate would change, and the seeds of love would grow.
Anthony Kelley is a Columbia College junior majoring in women’s and gender studies. Strength to Love runs alternate Tuesdays. Specopinion@columbia.edu