A note on discourse

Since I have the dubious honor of writing a column for the very first day of classes, I’ve decided that simply writing a column advocating my own point of view would be way less interesting than writing something a little more … meta. Looking back on my undergraduate experience, I’ve thought about many of the elements common to Duke’s brand of dialogue and social activism that really bother me. I’ve thought about everything from tone to substance (or lack thereof), and decided to offer some words of wisdom to address said elements. With a presidential election not far off, this is probably a good time to bring it up. I’ll start with humor.

In the world of comedy, there is this thing called “shock humor.” From Wikipedia: “Shock humour is a style of comedy intended to shock the audience.” I emphasize the word “intended” because it underscores the heart of my guideline. Whining about race jokes and dark humor is pointless precisely because the very point is to be offensive, to shock the audience into laughter. Whether it’s Tosh.0 or Family Guy or just some local stand-up comedian, shock humor has survived because a plurality of Americans finds it hilarious. The style of humor that a person likes is a matter of preference. By preference, I mean that a person is neither morally inferior nor morally superior based on their taste in humor. From this logic it follows that if you do not like shock humor, you are in no way a lesser person, and disliking it is an equally valid matter of preference. That said, don’t throw a fit because you spent your time surfing the Internet (read: Jezebel), scouring Duke’s campus and eventually encountering words that offended you. It’s a waste of everyone’s time, and it always ends with people getting all worked up over a joke.

Of course, not all discussions on campus are about whether a joke was over the line. Many discussions are about far more grim topics, like institutional discrimination or sexual assault. My experience has been that Duke students treat real issues with seriousness and respect. We have an unfortunate tendency, however, to cry wolf or to treat some events with far more outrage than they really deserve. I recall the “Pocahotness” incident last year, in which the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity threw a party with what was admittedly an insensitive choice of theme. The outrage was loud and immediate; I remember waking up that day hearing talk of a scandal. I heard visceral anger, and the words “Pi Kappa Phi” and “Native Americans.” Since eavesdropping is kinda creepy, I decide to ask a couple of my friends what happened. At this point, and based on the sheer level of indignation, I was fully expecting that a bunch of frat guys had gotten violent with a Native American student (or at least something close to that level). Instead, I find that the campus is working up a storm … about a party theme.

I imagine that you the reader might be thinking something along the lines of “you really don’t take this stuff seriously, do you?” In fact, a few of my friends accused me of the very same thing. Rest assured folks, I do take it seriously. The theme chosen was in really poor taste and needlessly offensive. I take it as seriously as I think that a fraternity’s choice of party theme really ought to be taken. The reason I link this to “crying wolf” is because if every last incident encountered is treated like a scandal, large blocks of the student body will start to tune out campus dialogue. Events that should command everyone’s attention will cease to do so, not because the events objectively aren’t serious, but because students will take them as the hip new things to rage about that week.

My last piece of advice is to understand and fully comprehend that moral, intelligent people can disagree on big issues and to respect those that disagree with you accordingly. This advice is perhaps more appropriate for politics, as the level of respect for political disagreement has far eroded since the days of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Entire shows on Fox and MSNBC are devoted to picking a liberal and a conservative and watching them talk over one another and accuse one another of being anything from a racist to a pinhead. I’d imagine that this stuff makes sense to the American public because, let’s face it, they are easily convinced. Luckily, we as a campus aren’t nearly that bad.

Those of you in the Class of 2016 will soon notice that Duke is a fairly liberal place. It tends to follow that campus dialogue is dominated by a liberal sentiment. I don’t consider the liberal slant to be a problem, despite being a libertarian. What does bother me is how the liberal tone can quickly become presumptuous, rather than truly tolerant of differences. Disagreeing (partially or completely) with the pro-choice stance toward abortion does not necessarily make someone sexist. Liking a specific government program does not make someone Marxist. To immediately assume the worst out of people who disagree with you is not only an act of bad faith, but ultimately counterproductive. It leads reasonable people with different perspectives to shy away from dialogue out of fear of being demonized for their beliefs.

This election season is going to be intense, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be civil. I have faith in Duke students. We are among the world’s best and brightest, and I look forward to a year of good discourse.

Michael Cook is a Pratt senior. His column runs every other Monday.