Dialogue serves a key function

Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky's critique of dialogue on Feb. 11 failed to demonstrate an understanding of the type of problems on this campus that necessitate the use of dialogue. True, debate can be effective for discussing certain academic conflicts, such as those that arise within a precept. But I disagree with Ramos-Mrosovsky's opinion that all dialogue should be replaced by debate. Minority-majority conflicts, particularly those involving a long history of discrimination, have resulted in interpersonal relationships wrought with complex tension. As head moderator of Sustained Dialogue, I can say from experience that our model for dialogue on race relations provides an opportunity for these relationships to be mended in ways that could not be achieved by debate.

I have been struggling with prejudice on this campus since the beginning of my freshman year. It can be difficult for people who are living with privilege to understand the ongoing, often subtle forms of racism that exist at Princeton. Because race is such a sensitive subject, it's often more comfortable to vent amongst members of my ethnic community than to struggle with explaining myself to people living outside of my experience. While I will always need support from people with similar experiences, I know that misconceptions will only continue unless I share my story with those who represent different viewpoints.

It deeply troubles me that Ramos-Mrosovsky makes a mockery of mutual respect as a worthwhile goal of dialogue. When feelings of animosity, distrust and negligence are so deep-rooted, it is an enormous accomplishment for people to learn to value each other's opinions. In Sustained Dialogue, groups progress through stages of dialogue in a non-hostile environment, establishing bonds that will help them work together as a team toward taking some sort of social action. We make every effort to recruit people who represent different viewpoints, because we do value the learning that takes place when people disagree. When people present ideas that are considered offensive, our goal is not to suppress them; declaring someone "wrong" doesn't make the relationship better. In debate, one is constantly focused on a rebuttal that involves only an understanding of the contentions and conclusions of a statement. Dialogue, on the other hand, requires active listening, not to rebut and argue, but to attempt to understand the beliefs behind the statement.

Improving relationships between people with histories of conflict requires tremendous patience. Only once we've achieved a common understanding can we conceive of reaching a "conclusion" to such complicated problems. If you are willing to devote the time it takes to listen and share, you will find that dialogue can be an incredibly rewarding experience. Hundreds of students, faculty, and administrators have found this to be true. While I would not refer to this movement as a "cult," I would certainly say that it is infectious for a reason.

Lauren Phillips '04 is the head moderator for Sustained Dialogue.