Hicham El Ouahabi | Blocking a discussion at a university shows weakness
It was an embarrassing display, Hicham El Ouahabi believes, when student activists disrupted the conversation with senior NATO military officer Rob Bauer. “Willfully blocking a facilitated conversation at a university, a house of ideas and debate, shows a lack of interest.”
What should have been a productive opportunity for frank conversation and discussion ended in an embarrassing display. Bauer, the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, had been invited by students to participate in the Room for Discussion program but was met with an action that made any kind of conversation impossible. Activists unfurled a banner with texts such as “Students against NATO” and “Blood on your hands,” while continuing to shout so loudly that continuing the conversation was impossible.
For me, there is no question. There should always be room for activism. It is the lifeblood of a vibrant democracy, a means for people to make their voices heard, express dissatisfaction, and demand change. But when an action focuses purely on willfully thwarting open conversation, the questions in your mind begin to multiply.
For days, I pondered what the deeper motives behind this action could be. Do these activists really stand for change in the world? Do they want to change other people’s minds? Or is it ultimately simply about taking action for the sake of action itself? To me, the latter seems the most plausible.
When you finally have the opportunity to have a lively discussion where you can share your views, inspire others with new insights, and even encourage them to think differently, why would you choose to shout? Why would you persist in shouting to the point where others are not even capable of having a conversation? If it is not shameful, then it is sad, to say the least.
The argument that actions are meant to shake things up and disrupt is somewhat understandable. But when even open conversation at a discussion forum is made impossible, there is clearly a serious problem. Willfully blocking facilitated conversation at a university, a breeding ground of ideas and debate, shows a lack of interest and enormous weakness. And that is alarming. Such strategies stifle and undermine the foundations of academic thinking. The opportunity to convince others with arguments is forfeited and others are robbed of the chance to potentially gain new insights through debate.
As I write these words, it occurs to me that those who believe that only like-minded people have the right to speak do not belong at the university. Then where do they belong? That remains a mystery to me.
