Recently, I got into a Facebook discussion about diversity with a graduate student, and he brought up the issue of ideology.
Often times when we talk about concepts of diversity, we shy away from talking about ideology because it can be wrought with challenges. Webster’s Dictionary defines ideology as “a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group or culture.”
Ideology can be shaped by one’s background, beliefs and affiliations.
For example, we see the challenges of ideology when we witness the disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over healthcare as this clash of ideology impacts everyone. Another form of ideology can be seen in Iran and the firm grip of the government versus the opposition. In this case, you witness how violence is used to suppress ideas and maintain the status quo.
So, what does this have to do with Virginia Tech? Depending on one’s ideology, you might view institutions of higher education in a different light. Conservatives would argue that institutions of higher education are bastions of liberalism in terms of their policies and the academic discourse, and many will point to the examples of the Vietnam-era protests.
In other respects, some could argue that Tech is a conservative institution shaped by its past and traditions. All of this raises questions about what these labels really mean. There is always a tension between different ideologies, whether it is liberal or conservative, or the right versus the left.
We see this tension within the tenure process, when faculty members are judged by their peers based on their body of work. There have been cases where faculty who did not publish in the “right” journals for their field were viewed negatively by their colleagues. Critics will point to the concept of academic freedom as being a liberal quality, but even this concept is fraught with ideological challenges.
We also see this tension in campus discussions, when in the aftermath of April 16, 2007 a different voice was heard advocating for the need of allowing guns on campus.
This was met with a lot of uproar as many felt it was insensitive to the victims and to the community. However, there were those who argued that this right to self-defense was crucial. This conversation is now caught up in broader national conversation about gun rights.
Another discussion surrounds those dealing with the Amethyst Initiative, which is looking at the lowering of the drinking age. This is countered by the efforts of Mothers against Drunk Driving, who advocate for the continuation of the 21-and-over policies.
Ideology can also manifest itself in terms of student involvement opportunities. I’ll talk about my undergraduate experience. As a student, if I wanted to get involved with student government, I needed to have one prerequisite — that I was a member of a particular organization.
While this was never officially codified in policy, it was clearly the practice. I wonder how many Florida students have missed out on the opportunity to help make a difference because of this practice. Too many times we see this blanket application of ideology, and it denies an opportunity for no reason.
Sometimes we view those who have different ideologies as being on the fringe or even as plain crazy. It is interesting that some of the freedoms we enjoy today were initiated by these so-called fringe groups.
A few weeks ago, I was at the American Pavilion at Epcot. I remember the opening of the show and how it talked about a band of settlers that came together to write the Declaration of Independence and fought for their independence from Great Britain, which formed the United States. These settlers didn’t let their beliefs be stymied by the British.
Other examples of the impact of such fringe ideals include the women’s suffrage movement, civil rights movement and others. We often tend to forget the importance of how new concepts that may be considered dangerous may in fact make a positive impact. Not all concepts will be successful or will even work, but it is about exploring the ideal.
People say that ideologies can’t be overcome. Let’s look at Spain. As a very traditional and predominately Catholic country, it has allowed same-sex marriage. If a mostly traditional and conservative society can allow same-sex marriage, why can’t individuals in the United States have reasonable conversations about this issue?
Within our own commonwealth, the whole concept of gay rights is a controversial one. It almost seems as though some don’t even want to acknowledge that these beliefs exist. How much longer will the question be around, and will those in power not acknowledge the needs of this community? This is a prime example of ideologies that prevent reaching a common ground, and people are subsequently hurt.
When it comes to issues of diversity, no one is saying that you have to alter your ideology; I believe the issue is about understanding how your ideology shapes your interactions with others and your willingness to understand the other side. In many instances, we close ourselves off from even having basic discussions on subjects because of ideology.
Too many times we see ideology as about winning and losing, but I would argue that it is about finding common ground. As we move forward in engaging with and understanding and talking about diversity, we need not be afraid to talk about the dynamics of ideology.