I thought that this article made some very good points. Especially when it comes to sensitive and daunting issues like “changing the entire campus police” it’s important to remember to give administrators time and be ready to make compromises. Not everything can change all at once, and I think the anger-fueled internet activism doesn’t really translate well into real life.
It’s interesting reading this article right now, as I am in the middle of trying to figure out what is and is not important to include of the stories that other students have told me about DPS. I feel like this article made a good point, which is that administrators would be much more likely to respond to things that are objectively awful rather than subjectively awful. (Example: Objectively awful is making sexual comments to underclassmen. Subjectively bad but not really something to get up in arms about: DPS making comments about how a woman should have done her makeup)
I thought that the interview with Esophorous was interesting, both because it humanized the “sensitive college liberal” strawman argument that is often used by older generations to decry trigger warnings and mental health concerns. I also thought it was really fascinating that some of Esophorous’s other comments reflected the same ideas in our own presentations. Especially the part bout having to interact with professors who aren’t understanding about health issues, which is Shelby’s exact project.
On the other hand. I think that there are a lot of good points made in this article about the direction in which student activism is heading. I think that virtue signaling and individualism has just as much of a chance to destroy student activism as it does to advance it. I think that a lot of the virtue signaling we do now, like throwing a fit when there are sombrero table decorations at a cinco de mayo party, creates a disconnect between our generation and older generations. I think that the virtue signaling and identity based activism makes it very difficult to have productive and understanding conversations, because any disagreement means that you are directly disrespecting someones identity (whether literally or theoretically). This approach means that anyone that does not agree 100 percent with proposed or demanded changes is a bigot, even if their personal opinion is not actually bigoted. Calling people bigots the exact second that they disagree with you isn’t going to contribute much to your cause, especially if the people that are trying to listen to you and help you make changes are the ones you are attacking.