The Final Collegiate Cookies

"What do you hope will change about the place where you live?"

I want to change how people in the United States debate ideas. The construct of a formal debate is to sway people to the debater's side. In politics, this creates a scenario where each player only looks to gather new converts to their view. Debates occur throughout American society, from the lunch table to the presidential election, taking on tough issues like immigration and human rights, to secure a solution to these problems. Despite this stated objective, people often feel more passionate about making another believe what they do, then finding the best answer to the issue at hand.

At the micro level of my high school, people who identify as liberal and conservative discuss current events. During these peer interactions, a similar script occurs again and again. The conservative student feels their ideas are attacked within the liberal school, eventually leaving the conversation with anger, while the liberal student believes their conservative peer never embraces new opinions and decides it not worth it to debate the situation. Both sides forget the most critical step of listening. The point of the students’ discussion was to figure out a solution to a tough problem, yet, when their opinions did not meet with immediate approval, they ended the conversation and stopped thinking of the original issue. Talks on difficult subjects must move from the idea that you should sway people to your cause towards finding the best answer to a problem.

"The George Washington University encourages students to think critically and to challenge the status quo. Thus, civil discourse is a key characteristic of our community. Describe a time when you engaged others in meaningful dialogue around an issue that was important to you. Did this exchange create change, new perspectives, or deeper relationships?"

After an English MCAS, three friends and I discussed a prompt written by former Harvard President Derek Bok regarding freedom of expression on the college campus. Bok’s essay talked about hate language and hateful symbols like the Confederate flag and Swastika, that challenged the Harvard community’s view on free speech. Our debate quickly widened to more than the college campus. I argued since no group in power can be truly fair and impartial that giving an organization, such as the government, the right to restrict symbols or speech, leaves the door open for anything to be limited. Fear is a powerful emotion. This debate ended like so many other conversations with each side sticking to their original opinion.

On the bus home that day uncomfortable thoughts swirled in my head. On multiple occasions throughout middle school, students drew swastikas or wrote terrible slurs in the bathroom. When I heard of these events, my middle school brain comprehended they were wrong, and the perpetrators should face consequences. As a high school sophomore, I was struck by how a naive middle school student could instantly understand how wrong these events were. Revisiting the discussion between friends pushed me to apprehend a system worth fighting for needs to protect its people, not cruelties that cause harm. This internal and external discussion became one of the first pieces I wrote on my Thoughts Local blog. It is hard to be wrong, but it is never wrong to listen and change.