Too prevalent in this country is the attitude that the way to deal with conflict is to destroy, intimidate, remove, or silence those who criticize us or disagree with us. Our government invades other countries, tortures prisoners, increasingly curtails civil liberties, and fires people for political reasons. When someone in power is criticized, the person often responds by denying that the offense occurred and/or by arguing that the actions were not only justified, but necessary for national security. When faced with criticism, people go to great lengths to do anything other than admitting that the criticizers might have a legitimate viewpoint. Although refusing criticism and invading a country are very different acts, what they have in common is the absence of listening and dialogue. Silencing dissenters may seem effective in the short run. However, although suppressing dissent, limiting freedoms and imposing punishments may result in obedience it will also fuel rebellion. It's better to inspire people to cooperate willingly than to intimidate them into an obedience which they resent.
Often, dealing with conflict by trying to destroy the dissenters is seen as a sign of strength. So many movies and computer games glorify violent action. In contrast, I see this approach as a sign of weakness. It's a sign that a person lacks the intelligence and mental flexibility to listen to and think about different points of view, and lacks the diplomatic skills to resolve the conflict. Negotiating a solution with someone who has very different goals can be a monumentally difficult task. That's why people resort to violence and punishment, because they are unable to solve the problem with diplomacy. Diplomacy takes a lot of work, a lot of skill, and a lot of time. We resort to violence, intimidation, and deception when we fear that something dire will happen before we are able to solve the problem through diplomacy. There are many times when diplomacy doesn't work and it's necessary to take punitive measures, but we need to remember that punishment/violence/intimidation is not the only approach and it's not something to be glorified.
After a suicide on the campus where I work, and the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus, administrators at my campus held an open forum. I was glad that they seemed to truly listen to students about the problems that occurred in connection with the administration's handling of the suicide.
One thing discussed was that both the incident here and the incident at Virginia Tech were caused by people in distress. Administrators at the meeting emphasized that students who are concerned about the behavior of other students, or who need help themselves, should reach out for help. One administrator said caring for each other is the most important thing we can do for our safety. I think we have to be careful not go so far with our concern that we force anyone with an unconventional personality into psychotherapy to turn them "normal," but I was impressed with the acknowledgement of the important role that caring for each other has in preventing violence.
The Peter M. Goodrich Memorial Foundation was created in honor of Peter M. Goodrich, who was on one of the planes which hit the World Trade Center. The foundation supports the education of children in Afghanistan, and also helps young people from Afghanistan attend high school or college in the U.S. By educating and befriending the people of Afghanistan, we can help reduce terrorism.
There are times when it's necessary to stop someone who is behaving dangerously. There are times when it's appropriate to arrest someone, or dismiss them from a job, school, or organization. But too often, people see the punitive approach as the only answer. It should be a last resort, not the only resort. We need to work on strengthening communities so that violent or punitive solutions are less often necessary. As college administrators, when we hear students complain about our actions, we should invite those students in so that we can hear those complaints in detail. Then we should try to address the concerns as much as possible. If the students ask for a change that we don't think we should make, we should respectfully explain to them why we aren't going to do it. In doing this, we not only address the concerns of our students, we also model for them an approach to dealing with dissent which we hope they will carry with them as they go on into their careers.
I don't claim that listening to each other and treating each other with respect will fix all the problems of the world. I think there may always be some psychopaths beyond the reach of reason. I just think we need to remember that violence or stricter rules or more punishment to silence dissent are not the only way to solve problems, and we need to glorify the heroes who fight for a better world using methods such as listening, teaching, negotiating, sharing, giving, empathizing, and learning.
