Real dialogue

I don’t blame the moderator for the stilted nature of the conversation; she was trying her best to bridge the gaps in discussion. And it’s only fair to attribute some of this awkwardness to the nature of frosh week itself. People don’t really know each other yet and aren’t entirely comfortable in a new setting, making discussing issues of any real gravity problematic. But in general, I think that this event was an accurate preview of the somewhat inadequate way in which our campus culture addresses diversity. Princetonians come from varied racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and religious backgrounds, a heterogeneity that makes each person’s Princeton experience different. But discussion of diversity on campus usually does not go further than acknowledging that truth.

We celebrate diversity through multicultural and interfaith groups and events, but we miss acknowledging that diversity means we are different — and that conflict can arise from differences. Just through my own experiences and those of my friends and classmates, I know that Princeton students face self-segregation by race, nationality and religion; LGBT marginalization at the eating clubs and in other social option; racial segregation and discrimination in extracurriculars and their respective audition or acceptance processes; and discrimination against non-native English speakers and students of color in the classroom. These are problems that we need to address, but Princetonians shy away from probing discussions about these issues. That was why sharing our own experiences — the good, the bad and the uncomfortable — was so difficult at that frosh week event. And that’s why it’s so necessary to find ways to start real conversations.

After attending the frosh week event, concerned with how everyone — myself included — seemed paralyzed in the face of discussion on diversity, I joined Sustained Dialogue. The small, supportive group really did function as an open space to discuss diversity, among other issues. What made Sustained Dialogue so successful, but the frosh week conversation such a failure? I think the answer lies mostly in how the different settings approached discussion. In my experience, there’s a huge pressure on Princeton’s campus to be constantly politically correct, to appear to understand everyone’s diverse set of experiences. But acting “appropriately” is not always constructive — political correctness inhibits real discussion and should not be so prioritized in our interactions and conversations.

In Sustained Dialogue, I was encouraged to abandon my assumptions about what was PC to say and to ask questions. Instead of assuming I could understand people’s experiences or how they made them feel, I learned to respectfully ask my fellow group members to explain their own experiences. Respectful, probing questions differ from insensitivity and prejudice based on their intent — they can still cause controversy and even unintended offense, but their goal is to illuminate problems, not mask or exacerbate them.

These are the types of questions we need to push ourselves to ask, and not only within safe spaces like Sustained Dialogue. As a campus, we need to speak up when we hear a comment or are in a situation that seems unfair or inappropriate. Alternately, when someone raises a concern, we need to listen and take it seriously. Recognizing nuance, admitting your own ignorance and truly listening to others is hard, but necessary. It’s OK to ask questions. The campus trend to sanitize potentially charged conversations in order to make them more manageable puts all of us at a disadvantage and actually causes more divisions than it prevents. And when we lose real dialogue, we lose out on relationships that could shape and broaden our time at Princeton and beyond.

Sarah Schwartz is a freshman from Silver Spring, Md. She can be reached at seschwar@princeton.edu