Stanford students have been getting a lot of democracy practice lately. That is encouraging, because every college graduate should have some experience with civic dialogue.
But as is often the case when people are free to disagree, feelings get bruised and abrasions appear. Democracy isn't for wimps.
As you can read in our cover story on page 50, a recent surge of activism has renewed discussion about the societal value and educational benefits of political engagement, and, at Stanford, it has also tested the climate of political discourse.
For those of us weaned on news accounts of antiwar and civil rights protests in the 1960s and '70s, the events at the Farm in recent months seem tame by comparison. Unrest on college campuses was a staple feature of American society 30 to 40 years ago, but for the past few decades things have been pretty quiet. You had to wonder whether mundane interests like building careers and starting companies had subsumed the youthful instinct to rebel. But it turns out there's still plenty to get worked up about.
As activism has returned, so has the traditional tension between the push for change and the maintenance of a civil society. And it has raised new questions about the boundaries of tolerance in a residential educational community. Whatever your politics, that seems like a healthy exercise at an institution dedicated to the free exchange of ideas.
This time, the activism takes place in a political climate characterized by strident partisanship in which competing camps stake out ideological ground and dig in. It's not only the merits of particular arguments that foster disagreement, but also the perceived aims of and methods used by supporters on either side. The quality of the discourse becomes an additional arena for charges and countercharges—a jostle for the philosophical high ground. That's not always a feature of activism at Stanford, but it's worth considering whether the tenor of debate nationally informs strategies at the grassroots. Two sides talking at each other isn't the same as two sides talking to each other.
Writing in the Daily, columnist Caitie Karasik said as much, lamenting that too much of the dialogue is occurring not in the public square but in isolated echo chambers. "Not only is it easy to choose who one engages with by selectively commenting on social media platforms, but also, because of contemporary socio-political organizing, much of this discussion happens within, not between groups. In other words, at Stanford, two-sided issues are not addressed by bringing the two sides together in dialogue."
Rallies in White Plaza by Stanford Out of Occupied Palestine, a group pushing for divestment from companies doing business with Israel, and an anti-divestment group, Coalition for Peace, occurred in "separate corners of the ring," Karasik noted. "This was a missed opportunity for debate. Imagine how much more substantive and fruitful campus activism could be if we turned around and faced each other."
Whatever else can be said about the re-emergence of political activity on the Farm, it provides a platform for conversation—for democracy practice. In campus plazas, in dorm lounges, in the pages of the Daily, citizenship class is always in session. And that has to be a good thing, right?
Kevin Cool is the executive editor of Stanford.
