Alessandro van den Brink | The spirit of compromise

Small Talk | Why Penn needs a forum to address our problems with speech

By Alessandro van den Brink 02/03/16 11:51pm

A couple weeks ago, fellow columnist Cameron Dichter wrote a column piece — “Whose speech matters?” — explaining why he believes that critics of political correctness are appropriating speech that hurts minorities who have nothing to gain through this example of free speech.

In my opinion, Dichter did a great job of exposing the problems in the arguments of these critics, but the backlash he received was scathing, to say the least.

The comments on the article claimed that Dichter was advocating for the restriction of free speech and asserted he was part of the “PC police” intent on writing the First Amendment out of the Constitution.

While The Daily Pennsylvanian comments section is not a particularly accurate gauge of the social climate on campus, I think it’s fair to assume that the concept of free speech and racism is a divisive issue.

We’ve seen the protests at Yale and Missouri, and even reactions on our own campus from groups like Students Organizing for Unity and Liberation, who organized a march in November to express solidarity with the Yale and Missouri student protesters.

In the several months since these incidents, it hasn’t felt like we’ve gotten any closer to finding a solution to this uncomfortable issue. Dichter made some excellent points about what he believes is wrong with the backlash against political correctness, but he did not offer a solution to hateful speech.

The only way Penn’s administration can hope to address the conflict is to create a forum where every perspective is represented. In this setting, students and the administration could work together to craft some sort of strategy to make minority students feel included in the community without infringing on rights of speech.

Last week, my own high school became entangled in controversy when the student body presidents posted a video with a racist joke to Facebook. The situation quickly spiraled into a vehement online argument between those who were offended and those who weren’t.

Though the dialogue was vicious, at the least the conversation was addressed, leading the school to hold an assembly in which students from all sides could express their concerns.

While some students were concerned that the assembly didn’t have much impact, the overall consensus was that the public discourse decreased racial tensions.

The student body presidents apologized numerous times, and in a school-wide email emphasized that they would focus their efforts on uniting the school, rather than highlighting differences through jokes premised on race or sexual orientation.

The end result of the conflict can’t be described as pretty, but it’s the sort of step in the right direction that Penn must at least consider.

Opinion articles help put issues on the map and get us talking, but real progress occurs when all sides of the argument try to find common ground.

What sometimes gets forgotten is that Penn is a community, not just a random selection of students studying at the same physical location. We must take steps to improve this community by working together to solve problems that affect a large portion of our student body.

I don’t claim to know what the University should do with regards to speech. I have an opinion on how we should use our speech, but my opinion on its own doesn’t help the situation unless it’s complemented by the opinions of the rest of the Penn community. When an amalgamation of voices work with the administration, we can learn how to alleviate some of the anger that seems to persist at our school.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.