Free Your Minds, Just Take a Plate and Eat
by Mike Foster
News Editor
This school's student body has more motivation and skills to reform than any other I have seen in my life, and that is a long list. Students here harbor an unparalled understanding of important issues, both in depth and breadth, and have never ceased to amaze me with the lengths to which they will fight for a cause, nor the finesse that they bring to it. Oftentimes we get caught up in fighting the good fight and making the changes we see as vital to the community and forget the overall exemplary status of this place. We rant on about a nativity scene and an antiquated celebration but fail to appreciate the lack of the all too typical fundamentalist teacher, impressing his or her views on helpless pupils. We complain about a prevailing sense of indifference and self-involvement among the student body while the total abundance of diversity groups, charity work, and political discourse suggest anything but. We claim no medium for a minority voice to be heard, yet a podium is offered every day to anyone who wishes to express his or her grievances. John Burroughs School is not perfect, and nearly every issue addressed by dissenters has some merit, but we cannot let the noble pursuit of an ideal community blind us from the good already here. This is not a lecture. It is simply a preface, albeit a long one, to my personal gripes. Make no mistake that the following criticism is in no way meant to undermine the exceedingly high opinion I have of this institution.
From the minute a seventh grader steps onto this campus, the school takes on the paradoxical task of both teaching him or her to aptly defend positions while at the same time attempting to broaden those positions. Dr. Shahan says it himself at the start of every year: one of the school's goals is to teach students "to argue." Surely the aim of any educational is to give its students the tools to better define and express themselves, but the latter frequently overshadows the former. I rarely see one of my peers sincerely change his or her mind over an issue on which they have a definite opinion. The inherent competitiveness among this exceptional array of young adults engulfs the innocent and valid role of class discussion and replaces it with simultaneous stump speeches. Giving the right answer becomes more important than finding the right answer.
The problem is not exclusive to this campus. 80% of people who enter a discussion are more likely to walk away from that discourse with strengthened convictions. What is the point of a good argument if no one ever changes his or her mind? Persuasion becomes a race to reach the audience first and cement a believable position into their head before an opponent does. People who know me are all too aware of my disdain for the unabashedly biased Conservapedia. My objection to the site is not the nitpicking, the offensive, often bigoted statements, or the general advocation of almost everything I stand against. It is the absolute obstinacy, the juvenile blog equivalent of sticking fingers in both ears and chanting gibberish that the site sends out to combat any criticism against its position. The truly terrifying fact in this case, however, is that they have the same philosophical basis that I am describing. Making an argument with an implied, "duh," at the end automatically closes off any likely chance of actually changing your mind. No, we do not necessarily consider another view idiotic, but we do not consider for a second that we could be wrong. Convictions are phenomenal, even essential, when taking action, but when the time comes to evaluate those convictions, allowing them to actually be evaluated is just as vital, if for no other reason than to protect the argument from unforeseen criticism. Allow this process, and the argument can become bulletproof.
Ideological tolerance has taken on a new meaning, altered subtly but significantly all the same. It tends to be more self-serving, an attempt to grant an opinion immunity against a counter-argument. The phrase "I feel like" is used so liberally that I counted 20 uses in just one class. These three words justify an attempt to throw bias into an argument while preventing anyone to object. Every opinion should face scrutiny, and not one should be taken for granted.
Following my own standards, I feel a need to answer any critics. Maybe I have created a straw man, and no problem really exists. Aside from what may seem like a broad generalization, I do know that not every student fits the profile I have just lain out. Maybe I just cannot come up with convincing arguments and have become bitter after repeated failures. I just wanted to offer the most important piece of advice that I can think of: take absolutely nothing for granted and question everything.
And now for something completely different. Five days a week, Juniors and Seniors filter out of their classrooms to combat an almost debilitating hunger. Despite their obvious hurry, they still find time to shuffle through the plates like blackjack dealers, looking for one that is completely devoid of any blemish, no matter how small. Even watermarks invalidate a candidate. A spec of something is not going to hurt anyone, and neither is a watermark. Does anyone know how many preservatives are in the food we eat on regular basis? A certain poetic irony can be found in a student who turns his nose up at an imperfect plate one day, then heads out to get a Qdoba burrito the next, especially when the latter has been through about twenty chemical baths before it is even wrapped. To try and combat contaminated food by avoiding the odd "toxic" spec is like, as my grandfather would say, "Putting perfume on a pig." If any person is attempting to eat nothing but sterile meals, he or she will have to give up those meals altogether. In the meantime, just sit down, grab a plate, and eat. That tiny black dot will not be what kills you.