CovOps
 Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious
 |  Subject: Smith College Republicans, group open up political correctness for debate  Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:03 pm | |
| NORTHAMPTON — A bipartisan group wants to bring people from both sides of the aisle together to better understand each other and reduce political polarization.
On Monday evening, they held a debate in an effort to do that.
The local arm of the national group Better Angels Alliance, along with the Smith College Republican Club, drew more than 50 people to the Smith College Campus Center to take on a divisive topic — political correctness.
But it’s not about winning, organizers said.
“At the end of it, we don’t vote. This thing is loser-less … the whole point is to learn, not to win,” said Rob Robertson, national coordinator of Better Angels debates, told the Gazette.
Changing someone else’s mind is not the group’s objective, alliance co-chair Mike Root said.
“My goal for this would be to demonstrate there are reasonable people who believe both things,” said Republican Club president Pamela Larkin, a Smith College senior who identifies as a liberal.
The resolution up for debate was, “Political correctness stifles learning and debate and ultimately does more harm than good.”
One by one, participants — mostly local community members and some students — got up and spoke in favor of or against the statement, and a roughly equal number of people spoke on both sides of the issue. In a survey before the debate, more people agreed with the resolution than not.
“Politically, I am what you would call a flaming liberal,” said Kevin Cooke, of Belchertown. But he said he agreed with the resolution.
“When we use political correctness to shut down speech and drive away the speaker, we rob ourselves of the chance of dialogue,” he said. “We must have the courage to destroy that bubble.”
Someone can say something hateful, Cooke said, but they should be subject to criticism.
Zachary Banks of Granville said he tries to choose his words carefully.
“Political correctness comes from a desire to act with empathy … Yes, speaking with empathy takes a lot more work — work we are all capable of if we have the desire,” Banks said.
It’s not about the removal of debate, he added, it’s about mutual respect.
Joseph Tarantino, a Hampshire County chairman of the Western Massachusetts Republicans, disagreed.
“I’m a Republican, but you could call me alt-right. I wouldn’t call myself alt-right … Feel free to call me whatever you want,” he told the room.
Words aren’t hurtful, he said. People tell 5-year-olds the old saw, “Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me,” he said.
That wasn’t how Norma Akamatsu saw it.
“It has very much to do with protecting people who feel bad about themselves, who have been made to feel bad about themselves and who lack power and resources,” Akamatsu said, disagreeing with the resolution.
But Akamatsu was not without some criticism.
“I think the problem is when someone is called a racist, it’s heard as this individual act of meanness, and the whole social environment, the whole system of racism, is not highlighted,” she said.
Gillian Mitchell-Love, a Smith College student, said as a person of color she has experienced racism.
“Asking people to use non-offensive language when engaging others is not an infringement of the right to free speech,” she said.
One participant asked Mitchell-Love how professors’ use of trigger warnings impact her education.
She’s open to hearing opposing views — that’s not what a trigger warning is about, she said.
“It’s not to say we are entirely against this thing, but I am acknowledging this thing (we’re) about to speak on has caused you harm,” she said.
https://www.gazettenet.com/debate-23904605 |
|
