
| Throughout the 2004-2005 academic year, our campus hosted a series of informal conversations about civic engagement. These talks were moderated by students, staff, faculty, administrators, community leaders and public officials. Topics included military duty as civic engagement, peace activism as patriotism, social security reform, women in the media, hate crimes, global citizenship, political participation, informed voting, alumni leadership, service learning, civil rights and serving in elected office. Some members of the campus community attended several talks, while others attended only one or two. Some attended for credit, while most attended for personal enrichment. A wide variety of different students, faculty and staff have participated based on their own interests and availability. After the talks, students talked informally with me and with the panelists, wishing to carry on the conversation after our hour was up.
These informal conversations, held in our main cafeteria during the lunch hour, have several advantages. First, they facilitate partnerships among various units on campus. The Office of Student Academic Support Services handled event logistics (including furniture arrangement, AV equipment, American Democracy Project (ADP) note paper, name cards and refreshments). The Student Government Association provided the money for the food. Both recognized the importance of out-of-class learning experiences for student retention and academic success. Second, it is always easy to find speakers. Each presenter is asked to speak for five to 10 minutes. Few presenters feel over-burdened by such a modest request. Third, these conversations are very affordable. The only cost (in addition to staff time to organize the event) is the minimal cost of refreshments to encourage and reward participation. Fourth, and most importantly, these informal conversations create a physical space on campus to engage in (and to model) respectful debate and political dialogue.
Participants in these talks do not all agree. Students sometimes seemed shocked when a participant (or our local community heckler) directly challenged speakers' ideas. However, as presenters calmly and clearly responded by further explaining (or perhaps even modifying) their own position, it became clear to participants that people do not have to agree in order to engage in respectful and productive dialogue. One advantage of holding such events in the main cafeteria is that the microphones can be used to project the conversation to a larger audience of people casually eating their lunches. It is always reassuring to see students who may never have thought about the topic of conversation, or about joining an out-of-class conversation, intently listening and learning. Some even migrate over to the table to ask for the microphone so that they can question the panelists.
Table talks bring together people who do not ordinarily speak to each other. For example, members of the campus Peace and Justice Coalition attended a talk on military service as civic engagement. At these talks, students, faculty, staff and administrators shared ideas as equals. Each genuinely listened to different perspectives in a manner that is all too rare. As Joelene Bergonzi noted in her April 22 "Viewpoint," students often refrain from discussion when they assume that they disagree with something said by a guest, classmate or instructor. In fact, some workplaces have actually sought to minimize conflict by creating policies against discussing religion or politics in the workplace. (For an excellent essay on this topic, listen to Ryan Bechtel's ADP broadcast essay, "Politics as a Taboo Topic" at http://www.wvpe.org). It sometimes seems as if civil dialogue is a lost art.
Proponents of the so-called "Academic Bill of Rights" believe that we must allow students to sue if they believe that their own religious or political views have not been given adequate weight in the classroom or have resulted in a biased grade. Supporters of this legislation claim to believe that it will foster the unfettered exchange of ideas. It will not. It is not the threat of lawsuits, but the creation of genuine spaces of open dialogue and discussion that will lead to academic freedom and to a free-flowing marketplace of ideas. All of us at Indiana University have a responsibility to create spaces where ideas can be exchanged and leaders inspired. We must continue to host discussion on critical issues facing citizens today, and we must continue to invite everybody to the table.
Editor's note: The students, faculty and staff of IU South Bend have worked to create spaces for dialogue that extend beyond campus. We invite members of other IU campuses to join the online dialogue via the interactive Weblog. Selections from the Weblog are also shared with a larger community audience through partnership with South Bend local public radio station WVPE 88.1 FM. For more information about ADP events on the IU South Bend campus, go to
http://ee.iusb.edu/index.php?/adp
For samples of recent radio broadcast essays, go to
http://www.wvpe.org/
|