April 28 , 2006

Two days at MC... sitting on the ideological fence

By AMY BITELY
arb001@marietta.edu

Too often, today, ideologues are inclined to listen to whichever sides of an argument they prefer. Conservatives turned out in droves to witness David Horowitz at the podium for the Point of View series; liberals turned out in (admittedly smaller) droves to watch Rick Eckstein counter Horowitz's points. In order to understand both sides a little more clearly, I attended both speeches and tried to listen without bias.

Horowitz spoke first, taking center stage before packed bleachers and chairs in Fenton Court on a Tuesday night. His main premise was simple: that being able to access only one point of view--especially if a person is penalized for failing to adopt that view--can damage a person's ability to think for him or herself. Horowitz also suggested that, since a majority of college professors are liberal and can put forth their political views in a classroom not intended to address politics, students become brainwashed (his word, not mine) to adopt a liberal viewpoint.

The next night, a Wednesday, I attended a presentation by Marietta College alumnus Rick Eckstein--he took the stage in the McDonough Auditorium, with a PowerPoint presentation to help make his point. His premise, like Horowitz's, was simple: Horowitz had drawn on emotions such as fear and love of country to make his argument, but he had not back up his contentions with facts. "Where are the brainwashed students?" Eckstein asked at one point, his PowerPoint flickering to a slide full of mechanized, zombie-like faces.

Admittedly, these were not the only things that Horowitz and Eckstein said. Horowitz referred to liberals in terms of the America-hatred and racial stratification he perceived among them; he also brought up Satan and Hitler, which supposedly makes an argument void. Eckstein, on the other hand, showed photos of himself and his friends and family (presumably to prove that he does not eat babies) and questioned Horowitz's academic credibility without displaying counter-statistics. Some people will find these methods offensive, and they have every right to.

At the same time, though, I also admit that both Horowitz and Eckstein had good points. It's a shame for people to hear only a few views, especially because we live in a diverse society where liberal and conservative views butt heads with anarchist views, libertarian views, Christian views, and even Red Wings hockey fan views – and every one of those views is equally valid, or at least equally silly. On the other hand, it's a shame for any person to put forth a point of view without any facts at all to back it up--where I come from, we call that "running your mouth," although I hear that at college it's called "B.S.-ing."
I'm willing to listen to all viewpoints on what "B.S." means, so long as they're backed up with facts (no visual aids necessary).

To those of you who attended both lectures and got to hear both of these really great points, I salute you. You overcame whatever your biases might be, took your seats, and sat in more or less respectful silence to give two talented speakers the chance to deliver their messages. Whether or not you went out of the room muttering about "those darn conservatives" or "those darn liberals," you at least let yourself be exposed to the other side's messages.

As for me, I don't think it's fair to tell you whether I'm in the camp on the right or the camp on the left; that's not the point of listening to a person speak or reading what a person writes. If you've been reading this column because I'm either a raging liberal or a raging conservative, I'm rather insulted--I'd rather have you read it because you think I have something to say.