This academic year has had its fair share of controversies. We have had the opportunity to hear N.T Wright and celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day through lectures, workshops, and guest speakers, yet we still find ourselves divided by political and religious issues.
Potentially divisive issues are inevitable, but that does not make divisions within our community inevitable. We must work to find the balance between isolating ourselves based on beliefs and being virtuous in listening to what we may consider “the other side.”
When N.T Wright visited campus in November 2018, EMU was not spared from controversy over his visit. Published opinions, protests, and attendees of his lectures reflect a divisive culture at an institution that prides itself on community, especially among the student body.
It is perfectly acceptable to not be in attendance at public lectures we may disagree with. We have a right to protest as well. I understand that N.T Wright has spoken and written on issues surrounding marriage and theology that have potentially reopened old wounds, but we must recognize that striving for diversity and healing means including “the other side” in an institutional setting, not necessarily in a personal aspect.
In the spring semester of 2019, an anonymous opinion was published in The Weather Vane regarding the speaker on campus for MLK Day, shedding light once again on a divided community. While I do not necessarily agree with what the writer was arguing, I cannot deprive them of their opinion, anonymous or not. Not only is this a revelation of divided politics on campus, but it reflects a fear of being ridiculed on a personal level for having an opinion. We should be a community that encourages people to share their honest opinions and that fosters constructive disagreements rather than attacking them personally.
One could argue that including controversial speakers may lead to further divisions. Is it not just as dividing, if not more, to develop policies encompassing the entire institution based on desires to pull the institution toward one side of the spectrum, no matter which side it may be?
One could also argue that publishing anonymous opinions gives cover for malicious intent, which will divide. I am not willing to jump to this conclusion without speaking to the original author. When people feel the need to share their opinions anonymously in a platform like The Weather Vane, we must seek to understand the behavior. It is not fair to make the conclusion that the author is an ill-intending individual only seeking to cause harm. We must also weigh the possibility that they have been wounded as a result of sharing their opinion.
While not all responses to the anonymous opinion piece were personal attacks on the author, that does not mean there were no potentially wounding statements made about them. While protests against N.T Wright’s presence on campus were peaceful, that does not mean there were no ill-intended statements made about him.
As new issues arise on campus—and they will—we must remember that wounding behavior knows no political spectrum or religion. We must also remember that being wounded is not a justification to wound others, whether we are speaking or responding. We live in a wounded world, and to respond by wounding it once more is futile. We must strive to respond with love and understanding, remembering that to love a person does not mean accepting their beliefs as true or right. It simply means listening with respect and treading lightly on wounded ground, no matter what side of the spectrum we are on.
