|
Campus climate raises question: Are we too 'PC?'
 Media Credit: Jason Risberg The garland that decorated the Atwood Mall was only up for three weeks before it was removed.
|
|
 Media Credit: Blair Schlichte Atwood Memorial Center was the stage for controversy after �seasonal garland� decorations were removed in December following a complaint to the SCSU president�s office. The incident left many people wondering if the climate of SCSU�s campus had become overly-sensitive or too �politically correct.�
|
|
In the last five months, the students, faculty and staff of St. Cloud State University saw a number of critical issues sweep through campus.
Some of these controversies, like the continued threat of war in Iraq, rallied and united people for a common cause. Others, like the recent anti-Semitism lawsuit settlement proposal, have worried and alienated students and faculty in the SCSU community.
In the aftermath, many voices around campus have begun to raise the same question: "Can we truly express our opinions with such a swift and immediate backlash?"
Is the SCSU campus too "politically correct?" Is it truly a marketplace of ideas, where people feel free to express their thoughts, feelings and beliefs? There are as many opinions on this issue as there are voices to respond to it.
No garland for Atwood
Perhaps the best illustration of the "P.C." debate took place in December outside of Atwood Memorial Center. Throughout the year, the Atwood administration "beautifies" the building with what they describe as seasonal decorations or plantings.
In the spring, summer and into the fall, flowers are planted around the outside of the building. From just before Thanksgiving until Groundhog Day, the outside of building is decorated with green pine garland. The garland is wrapped around lampposts and along railings, and a wreath of pine is hung on the building's east side.
"The winter months are bleak, dark and cold and (we did) whatever we could to just lighten up that time of year, where the sun sets at 4:30 in the afternoon and it doesn't feel like it's daylight until about nine o'clock in the morning," said Margaret Vos, director of Atwood. "I think we worked really hard in trying to be as secular as possible and have it be a part of what we do to beautify the building and to beautify the campus."
Graduate student Kim Haiman, Atwood Council chair, echoed Vos' sentiments.
"I feel that at that time of the year it's dark, it's dreary, we didn't have any snow to lighten anything up and to have just a little color," Haiman said.
This year, however, the garland disappeared about three weeks after it appeared, leaving many people around campus to ask, "Why?"
"We received a phone call from the president's office in response to a letter that they had received that really asked for the university campus to be more welcoming, that that the garland and all the decorations be taken down," Vos said. "Our purpose here is certainly to be a part of the campus community, so we responded to the request."
Vos said the letter had been sent by a group of people from the SCSU community. It was the first time Atwood had ever gotten such a request, she said.
"I was upset," Haiman said, "I really felt that there was no religious merit to it; it's very secular. It's there to make the environment and the area look better."
Within four days after Atwood staff removed the garland, the administration had received 38 separate comments from students, faculty and staff expressing their disappointment.
"We did have some international students that wrote comments about how while they may not believe in the traditions that we have on campus and that we have within the community, they came to experience that, to see what that was like and to learn more about it," Haiman said. "They felt like that was hindered because (the garland) was taken down."
Because of the concerns, Atwood has now formed a new committee to review decorating policies and to come up with a plan for decorating the building year-round. The council will decide on a new decorating policy and plan in October.
"Our feeling was that we shouldn't not talk about it," Vos said. "We should really figure out a plan of what direction we should be going for the next year or 12 months out of the year."
Vos emphasized that it was not the Atwood administration's intent to put focus on a specific holiday or religion.
"Never was the intent to say to a specific group of people, 'You're not welcome here,'" she said. "I feel bad about anyone that feels offended. I guess I always feel like it's difficult not to be offending someone. With every decision we make, there's probably someone who will feel offended. You have 40 people who felt offended that the greens came down."
Despite that, she added, she did not think that SCSU was unique for a college campus.
"I think it's just the nature of the kind of place that we are," she said. "It's very complex and there's lots of people and lots of opinions."
Haiman's opinion differed. While she respected the president's office request, she also believed that campus was filled with a tension that may have sparked the request.
"Nobody questions the flowers that are outside," she said. "Nobody questions the banners that go up; it just seems like this time of year that it gets kind of touchy."
Hypersensitive U.
Taylor Olson's opinion of the Atwood garland incident differed as well.
"I think that's stupid," said Olson, a junior. "If we want to hang garland on Atwood, that's our choice."
Olson came to SCSU from a small town in northwestern North Dakota. It was not until she got to SCSU, she said, that she was confronted with controversy related to diversity. She cited an example: last fall's mascot protest over the University of North Dakota's "Fighting Sioux" mascot was the first time she had seen people upset about the issue.
"My biggest beef with St. Cloud State is how (students and faculty) keep getting in the whole UND mascot 'Fighting Sioux' thing," she said. "Who are they to be judging people? It's none of their business; they're not Sioux Indians.
"If UND wants to have 'Fighting Sioux' as their mascot, let them. We have a Husky; PETA could come storming in here and be like, 'That's really derogatory to animals that you're using a sled dog as a mascot.'"
Olson said she wrote a paper on her views of the mascot issue for a class she took last semester, a paper which did not make her popular with other students in the class because of its unconventional stance. This semester, she is in a racial issues class and said she is worried about sharing her opinions.
"I am very afraid to open my mouth in that class," she said. "I do have opinions about people of other races but I'm afraid that just because the teacher doesn't agree with me, I will get a bad grade."
She insisted that she is "not racist" and does not have any problems with people of other races. However, she said, people complain excessively.
"Too many people find stuff to whine about," Olson said, "and if they can't find something (big), they find something little. I think we have way more things to worry about. You could definitely spend your time doing something more effective than (complaining) about the garland on Atwood."
She suggested time and effort spent "complaining" instead be used to better the community. Olson also said that she is not against other people having opinions different from hers -- as long as they let her express herself.
"Everybody has opinions and you should be able to share your opinions without feeling ashamed," she said.
Sandra Johnson, a graduate student, generally agreed with Olson.
"I think (SCSU is) definitely too politically correct and you can't say anything about anyone without somebody getting upset and trying to sue you or trying to get you blacklisted from things," Johnson said.
Her feelings stem from conversations she has had with friends.
"I get into arguments with friends -- people aren't as open as they think they are," she said. "I'm not religious and they pretty much told me that I'm going to hell. If you don't agree with them, they're not open, I don't care what anyone says."
Johnson said she thinks that over-sensitivity is a problem at all college campuses, because people are "hypersensitive" and angry with what happened to their ancestors.
"You've got to be nice to people and not get so uptight about everything," she suggested.
Becoming more aware
Julie Ingmire is also a graduate student, but her views contrast starkly to Johnson's.
"I don't think that the campus is too politically correct," she said. "I think maybe people are using that term really loosely. I don't think that by using inclusive speech that it's being politically correct, for example referring to people of color as African Americans."
Language is not so much politically correct as inclusive or exclusive, Ingmire said.
"I don't think (campus) is out of control," she added, "and I don't think that the problems here are not worse than they are anywhere else. I would guess that maybe it's due to the fantastic human relations department on campus and all of the different programming that goes on, on campus, about diversity issues.
"We're just a lot more aware of it and people are speaking up more often. I don't think that we're being extra politically correct."
Ingmire said that what some might perceive as over-sensitivity at SCSU really is a positive; it reflects well on the quality of education that SCSU students receive.
Sophomore Justin Hartel saw the campus climate vary between different groups of people.
"I just think it depends on what group of people you're with," he said. "There's certain people that you can say stuff around and it doesn't bother them, they just blow it off -- and then there's other groups ... you say the littlest thing wrong and they go off on you, they take it to extremes.
"I think people are too into the whole political correctness thing ... When you make a big deal about it, it's just going to give your group a bad reputation."
Olufemi Odunbaku also believed that campus could be sensitive, but he has never felt it personally.
Odunbaku, a senior, is black. Though he was born in the United States, he spent 12 years living in Africa and speaks with an accent.
"I love hanging out with a lot of white folks because I think that's the way I can get to know what they're thinking and they can get to know what I feel as a minority," he said. "I've experienced this so many times -- we don't even talk about that, we just see ourselves as equal. I'm very, very pleased with that.
"People don't see me as a minority, they just count me as equal. There are problems (at SCSU), I'm not going to lie, but I have not been in that situation where I get mad at someone for calling me a Negro or something like that."
"Not about free speech"
Steve Hornstein, chair of the department of teacher development, also has strong feelings on political correctness as it relates to campus.
"This term 'political correctness' was invented to kind of demean those who wanted a more civil discourse, who wanted a discourse that would respect other people and would respect how people felt," Hornstein said.
He pointed out that people on campus and in the United States have taken the attitude that they can say whatever they want however they want, whether it is offensive or not. Freedom of speech does guarantee that, he said, but people should express themselves in a civil manner, "without sticking fingers in one another's eyes."
He cited an example; the physical confrontation between an SCSU faculty member and a student in December. In this instance, the College Republicans displayed material one professor called anti-Semitic. After the confrontation, one student filed assault charges. The matter is still under investigation.
Hornstein said that one of two things happened: either College Republicans did not realize that they were offending people with the display, in which case they should now apologize for having done so, or they knew that the material could have been taken as offensive and the group should have been prepared for people's responses. The professor has apologized, he said, and if College Republicans would also apologize, that would be the end of it.
"Instead we've got people talking about free speech," Hornstein said. "It's not a free speech issue; they're allowed to say it whether it's offensive or not.
"The real problem is people don't feel like they have to manage how they talk to one another or what kinds of things they say in a public place ... If they choose to be offensive, then they have to be ready for people to be offended. But if you're going to do it, you can't then claim that you've been somehow wronged because people took offense to what you said."
Like Olson, Hornstein touched on the American Indian mascot debate. His attitude toward it, however, was radically different.
"It's clear the mascot offends a lot of people," he said, "so why on earth would we want to keep the mascot if it offends a lot of people?" The important point, he stressed, was not that some or even many people were not offended by the mascot; it was that some people were offended by it.
He also weighed in on the Atwood garland controversy, offering a Jewish perspective.
"The garland has become a symbol, whether it's religious or not, a cultural symbol of Christianity, affiliated with the Christian holiday," he explained. "It's not 'just seasonal.' ... When you only put up garland, you're saying, 'See, we celebrate our holiday, but we're not going to talk about yours.'"
Instead, he suggested that different cultural groups from around campus decorate Atwood during different times of the year to create "a genuine marketplace" of culture.
"What that does is that says, 'This is everybody's spot, not just the Christian's spot,'" Hornstein said. "I fully support that."
He said that current sentiment among faculty and students probably can be attributed to a history of racism and anti-Semitism on campus that both groups feel has not been addressed. Consequently, he said, "everybody's on a hair trigger."
"I want people to be able to say their piece and I want other people to be able to deal with it rationally, appropriately and without having to feel like they've been mistreated or stomped upon or attacked," he added.
Hornstein also suggested that some people on campus are afraid to express their opinions because they do not know if the opinions will be perceived as offensive. If that is the case, Hornstein said it meant that there is still work to be done on campus to help people understand how to be sensitive to the views of others.
"We keep being accused of being 'politically correct,' he said, "and that's just a way of demeaning and saying, 'No, we're still right and you're not.' We're not doing that to be politically correct; we're doing that because we genuinely believe in inclusion and we really want to make this a welcoming place."
Finding answers
Dan Wildeson shares Hornstein's commitment to make all people feel welcome and open to communicate with one another.
"My fundamental conviction as a human being who teaches here is that I don't wish that anybody feels bad," Wildeson, a communication studies professor, said. "I'm not interested in people feeling offended, marginalized, oppressed, or beat-up on. I'm against all that."
Wildeson, however, felt listening, not speaking, was the key to diffusing the over-sensitivity issue.
"It seems to me what people want is to be listened to and to be heard," he said. It is important for people to listen with empathy, he added, to ask questions and to listen with their hearts.
"I think if you get two people talking in a room, there's a greater chance for empathy to go both ways and I think it needs to go both ways if we're going to get out of this problem," he explained. "Rather than just one person telling me how hurt they are, they listen to how hurt I am, too, and we find each other in that. We create a new world that way."
Wildeson also said he is always looking for opportunities to meet people and learn from them.
"I've had a rich experience here, with people -- from a number of different groups -- as I have shaken their hand and had conversations with them," he said. "But I feel ineffectual on an institutional level. I don't think this problem can be solved on an institutional level or through an institution.
"It's got to be through people."
|
|
|
|
|
|
