Isabella Aguado (25C) argues that Emory University should further encourage dialogue with diverse opinions. Though generally agreeable, she calls for the discussion of controversial topics without regarding the extreme difficulty of avoiding social ostracization in taking the “wrong” side. It’s impossible to engage in such discussion because we cannot break the mold of mainstream opinion without social consequences. This is closer to an idealism than to anything implementable. We ought to keep in mind that Socrates, Plato’s teacher, was sentenced to death for such discussion.
The ostracized students are, unsurprisingly, those whose opinions deviate from the University’s trends, especially in politics. The idea that those students care about their social status, and therefore choose not to express their opinions, should be met with understanding instead of disapproval. It’s difficult to create an environment that facilitates this sort of dialogue without social repercussions. This is not unfamiliar on this campus. In spring 2021, the Emory Wheel published an editorial titled, “Conservative Students Face ‘Open Hostility’? Let’s Talk Inclusion,” which discusses examples of conservative students who are attacked for their political opinions. Attempts to spark discussion were completely refused by the Young Democrats of Emory to “not legitimize the Emory College Republicans.” This is the consequence of Aguado’s idealism when one does not approach conversation that involves controversy carefully enough. And it’s difficult to see if “carefully enough” even exists.
Students supposedly hiding their true opinions to score well can also imply that Emory students are goal-oriented instead of process-oriented, which is a separate issue. To Aguado, it is also possible their opinions are just not radical enough to seem true. We often label those who have moderate views as following the crowd (usually out of fear or discomfort), and while that is true for some, it is not the rule. The current state of the media loves radicalism, but it should be kept in mind that it is not representative of the population. The other mistake is to confuse critical discussion with hostility. The former often happens without the latter, especially within universities. Similarly, agreement is not necessarily conformity.
It would be against the principles of the College not to agree with Aguado. The voice of the student body is what partly shapes Emory College into a place where scholarly thought thrives. But it isn’t as simple as pointing out what we need and getting it. The difficulty, the part that requires the most attention, is how to create Socratic dialogue in ways that don’t have a Socratic end.
Eric Xu (25C) is from Short Hills, New Jersey.
