SCHNEID COMMENTS: Value in understanding differences between student groups

<p></p>

Hannah Schneider is a junior communications major and creative writing minor and writes 'Schneid Comments' for the Daily News. Her views do not necessarily agree with those of the newspaper. Write to Hannah at hmschneider@bsu.edu.

Hannah Schneider

During the summer after my freshman year of college, I was on a walk with my brother. We were shuffling along, and I nervously decided to ask him, “Karl, what’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? “ I winced and waited for him to berate me for not knowing the distinguishing facts.

But he didn’t. He took his time explaining the inherent social and fiscal tendencies of each and how their respective media outlets frame one another. I didn’t know it then but that was an important moment for me. It was the beginning of a voracious desire I now possess to understand the discourse of today’s world leaders and how they do or do not influence social change.

If he had berated me for my ignorance, I may not have such a passion. I have noticed a culture of individuals that I really value at Ball State and online. It is the collection of individuals that aren’t afraid to speak their minds on issues they hold close to them. I notice the Bernie Bros, religious GOP debate watchers, the article sharers, student government, the speech team members and my fellow Op Ed writers. I also intensely value the platform social media provides for discussion on matters that are really important to us. Discourse requires a space for empathy and learning.

However, I have also noticed something else: people shutting others down before the person has had a chance to really think about the issue at hand. I have noticed, in all sides, a vehement unwillingness to tolerate another party and I have seen this in myself as well. I identify as a feminist, and it is an ever-changing learning experience to say the least. Last year, when I came into this ideology I fulfilled the old stereotype by being, well, angry. I was fiery and excited about this new world and that often ended in steamrolling over others.

There was one conversation in particular I remember having with a friend in which I left fuming because he just refused to understand the concept of equal rights. The irony of my situation does not escape me. I resented him for not being willing to understand where I was coming from while also not being willing to understand where he was coming from. That was likely the first conversation he had had with someone of my philosophy and I wasn’t patient enough to allow for the possibility of mutual understanding.

My thesis is this: there is a value and calling towards social causes that demand our attention as citizens of the world. But we as individuals cannot force our personal ideologies on others any more than others can force theirs upon us. When it comes down to it, many are walking around saying, “I’m the correct one, listen to me!” and yet, the fundamental idea is that in order to communicate effectively and create change, the ability to see an issue from the opposition’s eyes is so very necessary.

I am not calling for people to waiver in their beliefs—not in the slightest—but we must be able to teach others the reasons for our association with an issue. I needed to learn the bare minimum before I could move on to thinking about the really hard stuff. And I am definitely still learning. If that still doesn’t work, if people remain unwilling, in contrast to our patience, keep in mind that there are others open to a different perspective. We must find them.

Comments

More from The Daily






This Week's Digital Issue


Loading Recent Classifieds...