A recent Wheel news article detailed conservative Emory students’ complaints that campus culture excludes and isolates them on the basis of their political views. No student should feel like an outcast at their own school, including conservatives in the predominantly liberal spaces of higher education.
However, as ideological outliers on Emory’s campus, conservative students must ask themselves: why don’t others want to engage?
Good faith political discourse is a two-way street, albeit a self-selecting one. No student is required to engage with peers on the opposite side of the political spectrum, even if spirited discourse is best achieved when those who disagree with one another buy into it. For some students, politics is rooted in lived experience; it is personal, emotional and even traumatic.
If inclusion is their goal, then Emory conservatives must do more to distance themselves from the immoral racism and white supremacy that plague conservative spaces. Only then will other students be more willing to accept their attempts to start dialogue or approach them for political discourse.
Even so, conservatism — just as other political ideologies — is the product of its adherents’ identities and socioeconomic backgrounds. Conservatism is not a monolith. While Trump’s disastrous presidency hurt its reputation as a political movement and stoked hatred within its ranks, we need to acknowledge that not all conservatives support him or his policies. Conservatism, like progressivism, is a spectrum.
However, some radical conservatives’ beliefs fundamentally exclude other groups, and such students cannot expect the same communities that their ideology marginalizes to embrace them. For example, students who uphold white supremacy cannot demand that a community that values racial equity entertain their racist views, and students who cling to patriarchal ideals cannot expect meaningful engagement with a majority that believes in gender equality. Radical conservative students abandon all notions of inclusion by adhering to beliefs that oppress Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC), women, and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Instead of demanding that others accept their invitation to debate, conservative students should seek explanations for why liberal students are less inclined to engage their arguments.
Emory College Republicans (ECR) President Jasmine Jaffe (22C) noted in the article that both the Emory International Relations Association (EIRA) and Young Democrats of Emory “rejected” requests from the ECR to debate because those groups claimed they “don’t want to legitimate [ECR’s] policy or [ECR] as an organization.” Whether or not this is true, Jaffe and her peers in ECR should be more strategic in reaching out to opposing groups moving forward. As Young Democrats of Emory President Alex Chanen (21C) said, he and his peers were busy organizing for the election — presumably what ECR would also have been focused on. Good faith discourse and debate should not detract from the priorities of groups ECR seeks to engage.
The founders of the Emory Whig, a conservative publication started by students who were former Wheel writers, have complained the Wheel fails to represent conservative voices. The truth is, however, that some articles submitted by these students to the Wheel did not meet publication standards. For example, one draft implying that systemic racism effectively did not exist would have constituted misinformation and could have harmed racial minorities. Their article fundamentally goes against the standards of harmlessness and truthfulness the Wheel seeks to uphold, and thus they should not expect either lowered standards — that is a fact independent of ideology.
So how, then, should conservative students maneuver a space in which they are the minority opinion? The answer is simple: first, listen to those most opposed to engaging with them. Those willing to engage in this conversation may find a common ground that is equally engaging for both parties. Learning from various minority groups that must always embrace outsider status may prove to be more intellectually stimulating than throwing ideas and beliefs into a space and expecting discourse to flow freely and evenly.
When asking for a seat at the table, you must first prove that you are willing to listen and learn from those around you. A truly meaningful exchange of ideas requires two willing participants, but if one of them espouses beliefs that deny others’ lived experiences, there is no room for real discussion.
The above editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheel’s Editorial Board. The Editorial Board is composed of Sahar Al-Gazzali, Brammhi Balarajan, Viviana Barreto, Rachel Broun, Jake Busch, Sara Khan, Martin Shane Li, Sophia Ling, Demetrios Mammas, Meredith McKelvey, Sara Perez, Ben Thomas, Leah Woldai, Lynnea Zhang and Yun Zhu.
