When the country’s temperature rises because of a particular event we often say it’s time “for a national discussion.” I’ve said it many times myself—a dialog on gun control, public education, immigration, national security, and now, again, race.
The logic behind these declarations is the belief that we can sit down like reasonable people and hash these things out, but it doesn’t seem to work out that way. Often we just get angrier.
The media don’t help much. We could, but we don’t. Instead, we focus too much on conflict. We bring together representatives from extreme positions, put them on cable news or talk radio and let them yell at each other.
When listening, it’s natural to agree with one side or the other, which inevitably pulls us toward polarized positions.
One day this week the debating point was over the statement by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani that the Black Lives Matter movement was “inherently racist.” A counterpoint suggested that saying “all lives matter,” was more racist.
That’s not a dialog about race; that’s a semantic minefield where if you stay in it long enough you’re going to make a misstep.
I often turn to WVU Vice President David Fryson, head of WVU’s Division of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, who happens to be black, for conversations about race. We’re friends and so it’s a “safe” zone. I can risk a candid conversation that will hopefully lead to a deeper understanding of racial tension because I’m probably not going to be excoriated for contrary views and opinions.
I hope he feels the same way about me.
“What are the concessions that we can make in order to at least take a deep breath and get over the next few days, rather than trying to go ‘in’ right now,” Fryson asked me on Talkline Monday. By “in,” he’s suggesting that trying to plumb the deep and complicated issues of race when emotions are raw may not be the best approach. When fire is raging it’s best to put it out before we start worrying about what caused it.
Any effort for true understanding of an issue begins with some self examination. Why do I think what I think? Can I be open to opposing views? Is there a position where I can make a concession or find common ground?
That’s not about self-serving guilt or patronizing a person who is different from me, but rather an exercise that might lead to empathy rather than anger.