The Colby Reader

"The Politics of Division"

By Suzanne Skinner

When I was interviewing members of the Women’s Group about the Abortion rally for an article I was writing for The Echo, I asked one of the members: "would a pro-life woman be welcome at your meetings?" Her response: "Probably not. Our group is more of a support group for women with similar views. Perhaps we could organize a forum, where pro-life women could discuss and debate the issue." Before I continue, I want to stress that I realize this is neither the official statement of the Women’s Group, nor is it the belief of every group member. But, it does highlight an alarming trend at Colby: one-sided activism.

When I heard this woman say that pro-life women would not be welcome at meetings, I was shocked. I interpreted this statement to mean that only "pro-choice, ultra-liberal" women are "college women," and are therefore, not welcome at meetings. Last time I checked, pro-life women were neither evil monsters nor women who believed that Women’s Suffrage was a horrible mistake. If this is the case, then the group should be a local chapter of the Feminist Majority or another group with a clearly defined ethos. If they want to call themselves The Women’s Group, they should be willing to accept members of all views.

Having tunnel vision concerning controversial issues, such as abortion is a disturbing trend at Colby. Eighty percent of our campus is apathetic about the current hot topics being discussed throughout the country. Students are more interested in where the latest party is and what’s on sale at Jokas’ than debating abortion or race relations.

For example, when Ben Humphries asked for a reconsideration of the Multicultural Committee bill, the campus erupted in debate. But, the debate was not about the issues. Instead of debating how race divides Colby and how we should fix the problem, students debated whether Colby had too many committees. The campus was divided into two different camps, people who thought Ben was right and people who thought Ben was wrong. Neither group was willing to admit that both ideas had merit. Thus, neither group was willing to compromise, reaching a decision that would make the majority of people on campus happy.

The twenty percent of Colby students who feel strongly about issues are frustrated by the apathy, which they see in the other eighty percent. They feel that no one is listening as they try to make a difference at Colby. After a while, they believe that they need to shout to be heard. Substance is lost and verbal pyrotechnics become the center of the discussion. Due to their increased activism, the rest of the campus dismisses them as radicals and they are pushed to the political fringes, to the margins of campus life. Because of this, no one wants to join these movements. So, the vicious cycle continues.

We need to eradicate this situation. The "silent majority" needs to stop deciding where to drink and start caring about issues that will effect their lives and what state our country will be in during the next millennium. The concerned students also need to change. The politics of division must stop. Those who run student groups have to realize there are many views out there. And, not all, but most have merit. If we ever want to get anywhere and resolve the endless debates, we have to be open to everyone’s ideas. We must realize that compromise is the only solution. And although no one will get every thing they want, at least we can come to a happy medium and begin to try to resolve some of the issues that have been tearing our campus apart. That is the only way Colby students can burst the bubble.