Stink Test II -- Walking Out, Closing Minds

As the outrage swirls on social media and elsewhere over the commencement walkout by Notre Dame students, I’m reminded of an incident with some paralells when I was at Hamilton College in 1967 (one that I’ve recounted before but as an example for a different topic). That anecdote might better apply to the Ann Coulter kerfuffle or others where students objected to the presence of a speaker whose views they find abhorrent. But I think the point is essentially the same.

I’m neither defending nor condemning their actions, their exercise of a civil liberty. Was their action disrespectful to the Vice-president? Perhaps, but do THEY feel disrepected by this administration? Probably. That they chose to reply in kind accomplished little, in my opinion, except to drive the dividing wedge between us painfully deeper, and for that reason I think I would have chosen to sit quietly but respectfully, and find a way to make my counter opinion known. But I don’t know for sure.

Before I get to that, however, I’d ask those who are somewhere on the spectrum between mildly upset to outraged to honestly apply the “stink test.” Had students walked out on President Obama, would you have had the same reaction, or might you have (at least silently) cheered, or at least defended, such an occurrence? Only you can answer that question and I don’t need to know it, no matter how you might rationalize it. Remember, the Notre Dame students can rationalize their actions, as well.

To the anecdote from my past:

“George Lincoln Rockwell, the (late, totally unlamented) American Nazi leader, ... claimed to not be a racist. He spoke at Hamilton College during my sophomore (and final) year there. His invitation, and presence, in 1967, was, to say the least, controversial. I’m not sure who thought having him give a speech was a good idea. There was some debate over boycotts, protests, etc. In the end, the semi-organized response was that we students would attend but sit quietly and then walk out at the end in silent protest.

I can’t tell you if that was really a brilliant idea or not. I like to think I’d do something, anything, different today. However, what happened made everything moot, because he revealed his true nature and sabotaged whatever goals he may have had without any help from us.

Rockwell was, like his idol, a pretty accomplished speaker. He had a rhythm and cadence that worked to dampen the resistance of his audience’s intellect. As I recall it, he was about a third of the way through his speech, trying to convince us that American Nazis were somehow different than the old-fashioned kind, and that they weren’t racist but just good Americans concerned about the deterioration of American life [please note this was almost 50 years ago and the theme still plays to certain audiences] the way the Founding Fathers had intended (conveniently forgetting how most of those same founders had been slave owners, of course). He was on a roll, gaining a modicum of momentum, when, as he talked about crime, he used the word “nigger.”

The change in atmosphere was palpable; I remember a collective gasp. He knew that whatever minor traction he had gained had immediately vanished. His car careening on the ice, he desperately tried to recover, to justify his use of, what even then, at least in educated circles, was an unacceptable racial slur. He failed miserably, in the same way so many others have failed. They fail because it’s not true; they are, in fact, bigots, who, while they may be able to single out, even perhaps admire an individual or group of individuals [who fit their world view], cannot, in general, see past the stereotypes that enslave their opinions.”

However, the same could be said about the reaction to Vice-president Pence. He is the former governor of the state which is the home to Notre Dame. He was a reasonable and appropriate choice as commencement speaker. By refusing to listen, those students failed to get past THEIR preconceived view of the man who might well become the next President of the United States (for better and worse, sooner or later). When we stop listening, or confine ourselves to the echo chamber of our own beliefs, we just perpetuate divisive stereotypes. That’s not good for any of us.

Propaganda Wars

One Like Click Begets Another

I have really come to hate memes, especially political memes. This is not a new feeling, but the election cycle has helped my antipathy bubble to the surface more easily of late. They are frequently mean-spirited and almost always the enemy of critical thinking. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum matters not. We all have our own life stories that have brought us to how we perceive our world. But having a world view, wherever it may fit on the political spectrum, does not excuse us from actually thinking and examining, examining critically, the propaganda we put out there in the hope, however vain, that we will influence someone else.

You can be, and quite possibly are, both the purveyor and victim in these social media propaganda wars. Let’s say you “like” or “share” a post from some site (Fox News, Breitbart, “End the Fed,” on one side or MSNBC, Occupy Democrats and the misnamed but clearly partisan “Non-Partisan Report” on the other, just to name a few). It doesn’t mean there’s no truth in the breathless story or meme, but propaganda is just a partial truth – and that truth has its own agenda. 

Blindly clicking, sharing, reposting, without actually checking the facts or to see if there is another side, does two things. First, it ensures that anyone who is not already in the choir will start tuning you out. It may seem counterintuitive, but if you’re a parent, or teacher, you already know that constantly yelling at people, and most of this stuff is no more than yelling, results in less listening and more tuning out. There are several names that pop up on my Facebook newsfeed that I barely even bother to look at anymore because it’s the same old, same old. Even if there is value to what is being posted, I guarantee I won’t see it because I stopped listening 643 posts ago. 

The second thing it does is to establish you as a target for even more posts like the one you just shared, liked, or reposted, miring you more firmly in a quagmire of your echo chamber, and in some cases the conspiracy rabbit hole. Once there, it becomes almost impossible to climb out, to start thinking for yourself, to critically analyze information, because all you’re being fed is variations of the same meal. That’s not healthy, either literally or figuratively. It certainly discourages the very important question, “What if I’m wrong?” And that is a question which needs to be asked much more frequently, not less, in the future.