Dialogue over advocacy

The example that most quickly jumps to mind is the Arab-Israeli conflict. With protests, referendums and panels, often the complexity and the goal of finding a resolution has been lost to the desire to convert others to our cause. Last year, the now infamous “Hummus Debate” was never really a debate. It was merely an attempt to make a statement. It drove the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine camps farther away from one another rather than giving them a chance to communicate. There was so much wasted energy that could have been better spent in conversation. What we need is real open dialogue on campus. We need to step back from advocacy and accept that some issues are too complicated to fit on a poster board in a neat slogan; that some views are more nuanced than that; and that it is time to address those views and discuss them.

Occasionally, we try to have such events. There have been panels about the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement and controversial speakers brought in almost every week to promote conversation. I am involved in planning such an event with Hillel international called Talk Israel, on Wednesday, Sept. 21, with the expressed goal of promoting open dialogue. This is not advocacy, it is attempting to understand as many perspectives as possible.

But it isn’t just the Arab-Israeli conflict. Most advocacy groups on campus only end up preaching to their specific choirs. There is little coordination “across the aisle.” It is rare to see College Democrats and College Republicans bringing in speakers together and engaging in debate. Obviously each group has different views, but it seems that the most productive way to deal with those views is to discuss them with one another, not simply widen the divide. Wouldn’t it be better for each group if they cosponsored more events? This practice would increase attendance and allow for open communication, which in turn would further each side’s cause in a way that a small gathering of people in agreement wouldn’t. The Whig-Cliosophic Society is a great beginning, but it is important that even groups with specific advocacy-focused agendas begin to promote dialogue as well.

But perhaps that too is a contentious claim. If we sit in our big open tent on Wednesday is it going to bring peace? Doesn’t that sound a bit prententious for mere college students? Sadly, sitting together and hearing from various speakers in moderated discussion groups will not bring world peace, but that does not mean that it lacks value. Events that promote dialogue can shift the discussion on campus from determining who is right to finding ways in which we can work together. The fact that there are so many passionate students on campus about this issue is a heartwarming fact, not one that should cause divisions. Perhaps this could be the beginning of a new type of discussion, a new mode of communication. It’s more effective to have 30 students discussing an issue than 100 students receiving brochures that they promptly recycle.

Unfortunately, this campus has seen too many passionate people devoting their time and energy solely to advocacy. Perhaps this year could open a new chapter in which promoting dialogue is at the forefront of all advocacy groups on campus. It does not make the best slogan to put on a poster, but it could lead to far greater results.

Kerry Brodie is a Near Eastern Studies major from Potomac, Md. She can be reached at kbrodie@princeton.edu.